Tyson has a PhD in Astrophysics and actually did some work in the subject when he was a graduate student and the years immediately after. That's his area of expertise, the area in which he was professionally trained. Today he's a planetarium director and a writer of popular science titles (some of them rather good).
Tyson flunked out of his doctoral program at the University of Texas. His advisors suggested that he pursue a different career, that he didn't have an aptitude for physics.
And they were correct. Not only is Tyson a source of bad history, he also manages to botch basic math and physics on occasion.
I'm sure that R. Michael Rich of Columbia noticed that Neil's lectures were very popular. The man definitely has charisma. I believe Rich worked to get credentials for Neil thinking that science desperately needs a charismatic advocate.
And science and rational thinking do indeed need a charismatic advocate. If Neil had some standards for rigor and accuracy I would say Rich did the right thing. However Tyson has no such standards.
In some (most?) cases, they might have been rather historically ignorant themselves and already believed what he was telling them, nodding in agreement.
And most of them probably knew Tyson personally. Even if they recognized some historical errors, they might have wanted to be polite and not show up their friend.
If I saw a friend very publicly saying wrong stuff I'd be anxious that someone would publicly embarrass him. I would take him aside and privately tell him "No! Say something different! Okay? Not that! Because it's just wrong."
So yeah, I would say they were ignorant and nodding in agreement. Nodding in agreement for years and even decades.
But I have to admit if I don't see a reason to check accuracy I generally don't bother. It would be a huge amount of time and effort to fact check every claim that crosses my path.
But it is interesting what happened after Sean Davis called out Neil's Bush & Star Names story. Many of Neil's supporters were calling Davis a liar! Even when Davis' criticisms were easily verifiable.
Even in this thread you can see someone saying I'm bearing false witness against Neil regarding the Bush and Star Names story. And this post is getting Winner reactions!
It seems many self proclaimed skeptics have a strong confirmation bias and a sad lack of critical thinking skills.
Perhaps the bottom line here is that people are willing to accept far worse arguments in favor of things they already believe than for things they oppose. That's as true for "skeptics" as for the ufo or paranormal "nuts" they fight incessantly. We see it every day in our hyper-partisan politics. It's a human failing I guess that can be found in everyone.
I completely agree. Every human is vulnerable to these failings. We all tend to swallow falsehoods if they seem to support what we want to believe.
The way to mitigate this is to make it a habit to challenge claims to see if they're supported by evidence. An excellent piece of advice that "skeptics" like to give but fail to follow.