This way, you don't get reports that, "x helps you be healthier!" when the study is really just showing that x culture has better marks on something OR a mouse study was showing promise, without reminding folks that most mouse studies don't work for humans (or that some mice are bred to make studies easier). I suppose the more damaging rhetoric would be presenting information that makes immigrants seem like criminals, when really, the crime rate is lower and the examples were isolated incidents.
I'd extend this to places that people expect as much truth as is reasonable - for example, vitamins and supplements. We know that "supports..." or "may reduce..." is taken as fact.
Ideally, you'd get your news from more than one source and if one source is almost always different from the others, you'd no longer use it as fact - but people aren't going to go through this process all that often if at all.
No, but how do we jump to conclusion that government, government-controlled or government-aligned entity should be allowed to control the information we receive?
I would say it has, and I consider only reasonable that there is a desire to understand the mechanisms behind it. I would consider the effects net negative. No need to a concerted effort.