True facts can be presented in such a way to lead to fake conclusions. With only a small amount of knowledge and almost no investments I can do this on a numbe

True facts can be presented in such a way to lead to fake conclusions. With only a small amount of knowledge and almost no investments I can do this on a number of topics, often presenting groups of facts that lead readers to assume opposing false conclusions. Now imagine groups that have vast amounts of resources to spend doing the same. Doing studies and only paying attention to the ones that agree with a certain view point. Scanning through other studies and statistics to find plenty of statistics that back their point even when relative to the whole body of statistics on the issue the findings are in the minority. Using psychology to find the best way to present facts with the goal of causing false conclusions to be drawn. Find legitimate critiques of opposing research but not uniformly applying them. One example is the effect of listing crime rates by grouping based on total vs per capita rates. Group X is 10% of the population but commits 20% of the crime. You can list the data as they only commit 20% of the crime, or that their crime rate per capita is double that of group Y which is 40% of the population and commits 40% of the crime. And even this might not be correct is treatment of Group's X and Y by the police are not equal. Perhaps Group Y commits more crime, but isn't as likely to be investigated? How can someone trust the facts they are being given when there are groups whose purposefully work to be able to give true facts in a way that encourages wrong conclusions?