Here's an example of selective truth-telling, from a story in Saturday's New York Times titled "Finding a Path to a U.S. Visa, Often by Luck":
[S]ome opponents of more lenient [amnesty] policies have contended that the deferred action and other immigration programs might tempt some illegal immigrants to commit fraud in order to qualify. [Emphasis added.]
The sentence is, narrowly speaking, accurate, but the overtone is not. As an opponent of "lenient policies" I (for instance) have often written about the extensive incidence of successful, as well as unsuccessful, fraud during the 1980s legalization program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).
One might say with total accuracy that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens successfully obtained fraudulent green cards during the IRCA amnesty; that is the central fact, not the mere possibility that some illegals might be tempted to engage in fraud in the future.
The article, incidentally, very gently brought up a continuing aspect of illegal alien status: Many illegals have such a scanty knowledge of the immigration law that they do not realize that they could move to legal status if they simply applied for it. The examples used in this report dealt with the various crime-victim provisions in the law, which can provide either T or U nonimmigrant visas, and, under some circumstance, a green card as well.
There is, of course, never any suggestion that many of the illegals fearing deportation are in that situation because of their own ignorance, lack of curiosity, and (frankly) laziness. A rational human being who is an illegal alien in a strange country might be expected to spend a little time reading and asking about his or her status, and potential statuses, but the media never makes that point.
The mainline press frequently writes about a "broken" immigration policy, but never about how some illegals might be tempted to solve their own problems with a little mental effort.