For that to be even remotely true, all of the following would also have to be true, which immediately disproves your hypothesis by observing easily seen reality:
1. somehow the public at-large became "informed" in the recent past with ever-diminishing quality of signal coming from reputable news sources, because "reputable" news sources are too busy chasing outrage for dollars
2. somehow the public at-large has completely disconnected from the propaganda networks such as Fox News, NewsMax, OAN, etc. that actively lie to their audience in order to get fact-based information from people that actually care about facts in their reporting, and nobody noticed.
3. government economic data was unreliable - you have not proven this central premise of your argument. You just threw it out there as if it's God's written gospel without warranting it with any evidence. Yes, there are corrections to past months, but there have ALWAYS been corrections to past reporting periods, and has been for decades. That is all factored in - you don't trust the absolute newest measurement period without padding the margin because it WILL be corrected.
4. government economic data is still unreliable - without proving it was unreliable to begin with, you cannot assert that it is still unreliable. There is an argument to be made that it is being highly politicized through the firing of bureau chiefs for presenting unfavorable data, but without disproving the data you're pissing in the wind on that too.
Economists the world over have always held that the data coming from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the gold standard in economic reporting, emulated by national governments across the globe. I think I'm more likely to believe the career experts - some with Nobel prizes in economics - over "hsthompson69" on a little-known internet backwater like Slashdot who can't even bother to back up their asserted opinions with anything based in fact.