That is the point. Simply by choosing which facts to mention and which to omit you can create an extremely biased news piece.

Omission of facts is not reporting the facts. That's the point.

Yes it is.

How the hell do you report ALL the facts in any scenario?

Any publication in existance will have to pick and choose what to report in order to keep a article to a manageable level.

Do you think Scientific Abstracts are all factually correct? Hell no. There is actually a very well known issue with scientific experiments and articles where scientists will simply repeat experiments until they get a result that is within acceptable p-values and simply submit an article on that one experiment, ignoring every single time it was wrong.

You don't need to report ALL the facts. You just need to report the pertinent ones. And the fact that domestic radiation is not fatal is pretty fucking pertinent to the passage in the OP.

Then any news piece must asymptotically approach infinite words.

Remember to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.

Exactly. But the issue here is that you are dealing with two different mindsets. On one hand, you have the paragraph above that 'stands alone'.

But that has no bearing on the truth. It's omitting key facts to be true, and creating a social situation like 'reacting to a non-existent threat'.

So to me and you, ridiculous paragraphs like those above are In Error, because they are Unfinished and Missing Info. But to others, they point to the paragraph above as some kind of 'sole entity' that exists on it's own.

No one cares about a paragraph that omits critical facts to portray the reality of the situation. But apparently, on the Internet, some do.

Chuck that incomplete paragraph in the trash and try again, that's my response to their nonsensical verbal antics.

No, that's the exact point he's making; excluding certain information and "sticking to the facts" does not guarantee articles are not misleading.

You're missing the point that journalists can stick to facts, but still thoroughly pervade a piece with their own biases and agenda.