Just as readers aren't obliged to take what is printed in the newspaper as unbiased fact, or even an honest attempt at it, for obvious reasons. Luckily, I'm sure this is the only topic that has the wording massaged to influence opinions.

You’re attacking a strawman. I didn’t say readers should take anything as unbiased. I just pointed out that the guardian neither pretends to be unbiased, nor would it be obliged to be. So what’s the point you’re making?

> I didn’t say readers should take anything as unbiased.

Nor did I say you did, speaking of strawmen.

> So what’s the point you’re making?

I guess that creating an implicit/casual mainstream narrative that is objectively false may contribute to second order unintended negative consequences (as in: "hmmm, if they're being untrue about <subject A>, maybe they're doing the same on <subjects B,C,D> as <authoritarian leader> claims"), and that it is doubly silly to do when you mostly have the truth on your side.

It's only a theory, measuring such things is notoriously difficult, but I think it jives extremely well with human behavior on both political extremes.