Conspiracies happen. Rejecting them outright is a terrible disservice to those fellow members of your society who are actively seeking justice for the world. If it weren't for conspiracy theorists, where would we be today? More good has been done for the world than harm, by a wide margin, because someone decided to question the official collectively-derived narrative and look, instead, under the covers to reveal the truth.
When something like this happens in the news, why would I automatically assume it's a misdirection with no evidence? How is that any better than believing the 'official collectively-derived narrative'?
So do you assume every news story is a government misdirection? How does you selection process work?
Let's assume you're correct and say there has been government misdirection in the past. Has this completely poisoned the well for you?
When the media reporting the news is factually owned and operated by the manufacturers of bombs, who are also well in bed with government and military agencies, then yes - pretty much every news story is misdirection away from the things that will effect that bomb-makers'/news-makers'/politician-pocketers' bottom line .. the time for paying attention to this was when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was passed, allowing massive wholesale capture of America's propaganda industry by its military complex.
Conspiracies happen. Rejecting them outright is a terrible disservice to those fellow members of your society who are actively seeking justice for the world. If it weren't for conspiracy theorists, where would we be today? More good has been done for the world than harm, by a wide margin, because someone decided to question the official collectively-derived narrative and look, instead, under the covers to reveal the truth.