But he's not entirely wrong. Stewart calls out the NYT for being wrong on Iraq; and they were. Today they are still the newspaper of record (for a lot of people

But he's not entirely wrong. Stewart calls out the NYT for being wrong on Iraq; and they were. Today they are still the newspaper of record (for a lot of people) and they're still devastatingly wrong about all kinds of issues, on a daily basis. I have a deep contempt for the motley collection of anti-(vaxxer, masker, etc etc) that have surfed to the top of a wave of distrust and ignorance. But I'll concede that even they have some points about how, for instance, the CDC had abominably bad communication about masks in the early days of the pandemic, and the "trusted" sources wholeheartedly amplified some obviously stupid ideas. ... that said, I think you're right. Stewart wants to make this issue all about him and his past valor in the fight for truth, all while implying that it's somehow wrong to even try to establish who's right. It's a dumb take, and I can only hope he's not in the early stage of some Scott Adams-esque drift into misinformation cult territory. As for my own answer to "who to trust", I daydream about finding some new subculture that contains experts who know very different things than I do; people I can look to, to tell me "this is how it is" about any given complex issue. An idealistic dream of what the internet could be, basically. It's possible to sort of get there through a patchwork individual blogs / newsletters / etc, but it's extremely high friction and time intensive, and that hasn't improved much in 20+ years of life on the internet.