It is very easy to say that he should be fact-checked, canceled, whatever.
It's also very easy to say whatboutery when examples of the MSM getting things wrong are brought up. Without context it can indeed seem like that.
But then we get into the dreary reality of fact-checking. Who does it and on what basis?
1. Social media fact-checkers insinuated that the story about Hunter Biden's laptop was based on wrong information. Ironically, this was a fact-free assertion. Regardless the story was invisible-ised for months.
2. Specifically about Iraq - the US and UK govt and their agencies, and 1st rate journalistic outfits were united in claiming Saddam's WMDs existed. What would the correct fact-checking be for a podcast arguing he didn't have them? A disinformation warning? A removal? What if someone noted the Vice President's old job, and claimed it was the reason for war? What punishment would be appropriate? After all, the US and UK govt and their agencies and the best journalistic outfits knew that the war was motivated by three thing: stopping the spread of WMDs in the axis of evil, to topple a brutal and unpopular dictator, and to give democracy to a people waiting for deliverance and liberty. It was *not* a war for oil or personal enrichment.
3. Go down the line. Iran-Contra. Reagan sabotaging hostage negotiations. Nixon sabotaging peace talks. The FBI spying on MLK and other subversives. These were all conspiracy theories that would be ridiculed by contemporary fact-checkers till they broke.
e - want to clarify, i don't care if there's fact-checking. disinformation obviously killed a ton of people. just that there's no good way to do it, and, both ways are bad.