In sixth grade, I had a fantastic teacher who gave us an inspired assignment. We were to choose a famous "good guy" from history and write a research paper that showcased the hero as a villain. I chose William Shakespeare.
We had to cite our sources (this was well before the days of Wikipedia, so my sources were all books) and ensure that the paper was well-researched. Many hours in the library ensued.
In the end, I turned in a paper that showed that Shakespeare had been a fraud, a terrible husband and father, uneducated and all around not someone I'd want to know. And I hadn't technically made anything up.
I used well-respected sources including the Encyclopedia Britannica and cited them for all facts and quotes. It was just that many, if not all, of the facts in my paper were taken completely out of context.
A source that related "although no attendance records for the period survive, most biographers agree that Shakespeare was probably educated at a school in Stratford" was cited in my paper as reporting: "There are no records that Shakespeare ever attended school."
Not a lie. Not wrong. But certainly not the whole truth.
I wish I still had a copy of that paper. I remember it decades later, which is not something I can say of many details of my middle-school education. It was an incredible assignment to give to a 12-year-old. I wonder if any teachers give similar assignments today.
What stuck with me, and this was probably my teacher's intent, was how easy it was to twist information to suit whatever message you are aiming for. It reinforced the importance of context and of knowing the whole story, rather than taking information at face value.