I sympathize with your sentiment, but dishonesty in that case
is relevant to credibility in this one.
What, besides credibility of the institutions making the allegations, are these allegations' "own merits"?
Agreed that a reflexive "they lie!" position isn't useful, but... trust doesn't seem like a reasonable default either. In the same vein, it would be naive to trust the Chinese NBS to report unflattering economic statistics honestly. Why? Because of past/recent dishonesty.
Whether it's true or not, I don't think the purpose of this announcement is to inform us. It's part of power games with China, laying public groundwork for updating the NATO mission, new departments/funding/laws/etc... That's not a general paranoia. I get this impression from the NATO statement itself.
from P4:
China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an Alliance. We will engage China with a view to defending the security interests of the Alliance. We are increasingly confronted by cyber, hybrid, and other asymmetric threats, including disinformation campaigns, and by the malicious use of ever-more sophisticated emerging and disruptive technologies. Rapid advances in the space domain are affecting our security. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the erosion of the arms control architecture also undermine our collective security.
Promising to engage China, followed by nonspecific cyber, WMD & space threats.
Here is where I might be paranoid, cynical or whatnot. Is defense against cyberattacks the actual goal, or is cyberwarfare just another long term raison d'etre?