Being accurate and reliable on average is what makes the bias on select topics effective. And bias of omission is most effective. E.g. the complete absence of

Being accurate and reliable on average is what makes the bias on select topics effective. And bias of omission is most effective. E.g. the complete absence of any demographics vs. time graph (and near-complete absence of demographic information in general) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement One can take a look at the talk page of that article to see the fervent resistance of editors to include more demographic information. One person compared it to debunking JFK assassination conspiracy theories without mentioning that JFK was in fact killed. The entire "Demographic statistics" section is only a reference to the 8-12% Muslim population in France, which can charitably be described as misleading, since, in addition to giving no information on the rate of change or past statistics, is a very low estimate: [Sickle cell] screening suggests that in 2000, 19% of all newborn babies in Metropolitan France had at least one parent originating from one of the risk regions. The figure for [..] 2015 [is] 38.9 %. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#Statist...