Can someone explain what's so odd or fraudulent about it? 1. Govt spending on ads increased in February as the article says. But isn't it expected given that g

Can someone explain what's so odd or fraudulent about it? 1. Govt spending on ads increased in February as the article says. But isn't it expected given that govt sources have to reach wider audience in times of crisis and hence has to increase its spending doing that. We can of course challenge the specific amount spent and whether its justified but there was no analysis done on that aspect of it. The article merely reports the increase in spending. 2. The article hints that there is an odd correlation of ads by the govt being of "positive response" towards the crisis. Althought that is debatable whether it is indeed true or not, assuming that it is true, I am not sure whether the response where the govt makes ads that say "we are failing each day and have no idea how to respond to this crisis" are a better alternative. These days the media stories are often one sided, either positive or negative so a neutral ground of emotion is hard to see. So I am thinking how else this should have been done. 3. Is it propaganda? Yes. Is it a lie? That would mean the media outlets are lying and we should stop reading them. Is it half of the information? Probably. That's why we have to rely on multiple news sources to get the complete picture. The question is what is the public going to do with this information?