Video is not to be trusted since 1896 and the first of Melies' movies.
The only difference is that the skills and computation power necessary to make it realistic enough are now much more accessible.
The only difference is that the skills and computation power necessary to make it realistic enough are now much more accessible.
In 1896, a small handfull of people could conceivably alter film in a time-consuming process to achieve then-believable (and now generally laughable) results.
In 2020, billions of computers worldwide can alter video streams to levels requiring extremely good detection methods, or defeating even those, in realtime.
"Photographic evidence" was at one point in time a gold standard.
The era of analogue recordings -- that is, analagous to the ground truth -- created a period of high-detail, high-fidelity records of facts, in the original sense of events.
Rather than relying on testimony, witnesses, hearsay, or small fragments of physical evidence, there were records of still or moving images, audio, and more.
But with that came increasing capabilities to edit those records, general perception of which generally strongly trailed capabilities. It was the creator of uber-rational detective Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle, who was taken in by fabricated "fairie" photographs:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/559519/cottingley-fairy-...
What's changed though is the level of skill required to doctor content (none, with available software), the speed at which the alterations can be accomplished (realtime), and the detail and convincingness of the alterations (high).
A hydrogen bomb does the same thing that Greek Fire does, at scale.
The gas turbine does the same thing the ox does, at scale.
Mustard gas does the same thing a bee does, at scale.
Scale matters.