I can sympathize with the sense of confusion, but this is one of the principal purposes of information warfare. When successful it does one of following things:
1. disengages people who would otherwise be opposed;
2. sows doubt and division;
3. makes people believe the propaganda is true.
We often fixate on #3, but #1 and #2 are the principal goals of today's information warfare, because they're much easier to achieve. When the other side's population doesn't know what to think, you're in a great position. It's effectively demobilizing the enemy.
But what if the purpose of the manipulation is to suppress dissent, or at least encourage passive acceptance of the status quo, by convincing people remain to neutral and silent?
To whom? If everyone followed the rule you're proposing, the only people they could speak out to are people who share their firsthand experience or domain expertise. Communicating further would necessitate secondhand information or some form of media which can't be trusted, as it could possibly contain some manipulating element. Who could Ukrainians ask for help from? The Russians? Would everyone else be required to fly to Ukraine to try to verify the existence of the war firsthand before having an opinion?
There are more important things than being made a fool of sometimes. The risk of being manipulated exists no matter what you do, or don't do, and you can never have perfect knowledge of any situation, even if you're an eyewitness, because human perception itself is fallible, limited to a single perspective and prone to self-deception.
Not the GP. I don't specifically dispute that. But in a time when many fictional stories can be told through video, I think it's reasonable to be unsure and neutral on things that we don't have direct knowledge about. Put another way, I think being neutral and silent by default is a necessary defense against manipulation.