The problem with this argument is that you are presenting truth and falsity as a binary quantity. While it's correct that there is no statement free of bias, it does not follow that all statements are equally biased. Fox news seems pretty darn biased to me. The NY times is less biased, but it's definitely slipped a lot.
Okay, in grey areas there is even more room for telling partial truths. If something objective as a number can lead to a valid disagreement, then what hope do we have for complicated political issues. To me in the end it breaks down into complicated power relations.
We can tell whichever shade of grey that we want to tell that those who are listening to us what to hear in the frame and the rhetoric which appeals to them. Fox news is biased to tell the partial truth of a certain demographic which feels empowered by that rhetoric. If more people believe reality as told by Fox News it gives them more power within the system to get whatever they think it is that they want. Currently they are going after Cuomo, a democrat, in the sidebars there are criticisms of cancel culture.
Yes I know the difference, I was making a point, you can still know what you are saying but not say everything that needs to be said in order to fit the definition, in fact I am arguing that if you are telling a story, and not writing a book, you can't fit that definition.
That's the great thing about math: It doesn't care how sincerely you believe that 6 and 9 are the same number. In other words, the kind of game you're talking about can only go on for so long before cold reality makes itself known.
