For example, a lot of Covid reporting really annoyed me, on both sides. One side would say "Here's facts A and B; see, the vaccine is working!". The other side would say "Here's facts C and D; see, the vaccine is killing people!". Over and over again. What we needed was the article that said "Here's A, B, C, and D, all together, and the reasonable conclusion is that the vaccine is harming some people and helping others, and the benefits outweigh the harm"... or whatever. But I'd never see that article. I'd see one side picking the data that made their side look good, and completely ignoring all data that didn't. And the same from the other side.
It was very obvious (and frustrating) with Covid. But Covid isn't the only issue where that happens. Try to find an article on abortion that regards the fetus as genuinely human, yet still advocates for abortion rights. Or that acknowledges the harm and strain to the mother, while still advocating for restricting abortion. They may exist, but they're really rare. The sides are too busy yelling "my body, my choice" (as if the fetus either didn't exist or were a part of the mother's body) or "baby killers" (as if there were no consequences to the mother).
In none of these situations can you give all relevant information. Nobody's got time and attention for that. But you can try to come close, or you can try to only present the parts that make your side look right (and not just right, but obviously right, so that no other position could be reasonable).
They're publishing true things, but not the truth. And the true things they're publishing, they're doing so with the intent of propaganda.
Yeah, I think it's fair to call that lying. And no, that doesn't mean that everything is a lie.
Here’s the first example I found: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/health/cdc-vaccine-heart-...
I agree that this was important but am baffled how you missed the many articles like that in mainstream news sources (NPR, NYT, Washington Post, etc.), as well as the various scientists and public health experts who wrote blog posts digging into those discussions.
And, more importantly, this kind of rhetoric or definition doesn't help anything, even if there is a clear definition which there isn't one. It's the cynicism, without any use.
Keeping it as simple as possible, we take Fact A. If we're talking about a specific fact (in this case, Fact A) then to state Fact A and assert its validity/soundness/truth etc is not to lie.
If the subject is not Fact A, but Fact A is is given to support a certain other position/fact with regards to the subject and you know that to say Fact A without Fact B (C, D…) will give a misleading impression about the subject then you are, indeed, lying.
Intent-based analysis is not useful, because you can't know the intent and also the intent doesn't make any difference as to what the effect will be - that well-intended source can have the same or worse misleading effect as an ill-intended source, and the distinction between well-intended vs ill-intended is also in the eyes of the beholder.