—it's going to be obvious.
I think you have, certainly, from a question of reputation and especially if you're media and you decide that this is a.... For governments, things don't get bad until the media picks it up, right? If the media picks it up, they have their own processes of scrutiny, and they will check, I would expect—not being a member of the media—to be able to look at that and say is what they're saying legit or are they not. Is the person credible? There's going to be a big difference between somebody who has no training in statistics, for example, versus somebody who is a university professor or a chief statistician or so-and-so and the authority they get from their credentials.
So all that becomes part of the conversation around the data. That's not to say the government shouldn't be active if they see things that are misleading people and opening up that conversation and doing that check and being part of that cultural scrutiny. This is why this idea of engagement and setting norms around how data gets used is really important.
For the most part, I haven't seen anything yet. I'm not terribly worried about it, just because I know about this culture of scrutiny.