People often see liars or propagandists as required to take an extreme position. For a recent example that actually played out, let's say I'm a media site that

People often see liars or propagandists as required to take an extreme position. For a recent example that actually played out, let's say I'm a media site that wants to run a publicity campaign for Sam Bankman-Fried after it came out that he's a conman, in part because he previously donated large sums of money to me and/or interests I care about. Does that mean I now evangelize him like he's the most amazing and noble person ever? No, because that reeks of insincerity. Instead, you acknowledge the issues, and then aim to 'contextualize' them. It's not 'a person of minimal ethical compass doing scummy things because of a lust for money', but instead it's him being misguided or misled - perhaps a naive genius, who was genuinely trying in earnest to do the right thing, but found himself in over his head. It's no longer supposed to be basic white collar crime but a 'complex and nuanced issue.' And it's the same thing in all domains. Somebody taking a 'nuanced' position does not mean they actually care at all about the nuance, but that they may believe that as being the most effective way of convincing you to do, or believe, what they want you to. And the worst part is that humanity is extremely good at cognitive dissonance. The first person a very good liar convinces is himself.