Is "lying by omission" just as bad as outright lying?
When I say "lying by omission", I mean that a person makes a statement or claim about something knowing full well that they are omitting an important piece of information that might cause the listener or reader to think less favorably about the issue.
Lying by ommission is one of the key tools of Public Relations. Accentuating the positive and downplaying or ommitting the negative.
For an example. At one point during the runup to the Iraq war, the inspectors were pulled out because of failure to comply on the part of Hussein. I watched the whole runup on Free Speech tv, which included a lot of reports and documentaries we never see here. And they had a documentary piece from the BBC (iirc) that shed a little light on the subject that never made it into our media.
There was a procedure in place for the inspection of Husseins palaces, the ones he actually lived in. Inspectors were allowed by agreement to inspect without notice, but were only allowed to send in two inspectors initially. If those inspectors found something they could bring in the rest of the team.
The new American head of the inspectors unilaterally changed the rules and demanded the whole team be allowed to enter from the outset.
Palace guards refused to allow this, as it was contrary to their orders, and the inspectors were pulled out based on this "non-compliance".
Its been a while and I can't remember all the details, but it was such a big deal that I'm sure I could get the details.
The upshot is the example.
"Saddam Hussein refuses to allow inspectors to do their jobs" while leaving out that it was a unilateral, non-negotiated change in protocols that caused the reaction in the first place, is a lie.
And the kind not easily debunked by the listener.