Errors, even lies, happen, but they are negligible compared to the most powerful tool of propaganda: cherrypicking. E.g. the otherwise thorough NYT reporting on air traffic controller shortages [1] entirely omitted the FAA diversity hiring scandal that disqualified applicants with top grades if they weren't diverse enough [2]. During COVID, the credible experts were happily making models of how many deaths a motorcycle rally caused [3], but when it came time to do the same for BLM, we instead got "Protest Is a Profound Public Health Intervention" [4]. This is not an outlier - social scientists have been turning a blind eye to results they dislike since at least 1985 [5].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/business/air-traffic-cont...
[2] https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-full-story-of-the-fa...
[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7753804/
[4] https://time.com/5848212/doctors-supporting-protests/
[5] The authors also submitted different test studies to different peer-review boards. The methodology was identical, and the variable was that the purported findings either went for, or against, the liberal worldview (for example, one found evidence of discrimination against minority groups, and another found evidence of "reverse discrimination" against straight white males). Despite equal methodological strengths, the studies that went against the liberal worldview were criticized and rejected, and those that went with it were not. - from https://theweek.com/articles/441474/how-academias-liberal-bi..., citing the study "Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research.": https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-12806-001
