Lying and deliberately misleading aren't quite the same thing, although they have the same effect; I would expect the press to do the latter but not the former. So when you implied that the mass media reports did lie, I was confused and decided to dig further.
One practical difference is that, if lying is considered bad but things-close-to-lying aren't, it requires a tertiary source to completely replace the truth by a lie.
They're the same thing consequentially, but different under deontological and virtue ethics, so there's a signalling convention that one is better than the other.
How many times have you heard a claim from a somewhat reputable source like "only 28 percent of Americans are able to name one of the constitutional freedoms, yet 52 percent are able to name at least two Simpsons family members"?
Mark Liberman over at Language Log wrote up a post showing how even when such claims are based on actual studies, the methodology is biased to exaggerate ignorance:
If, every time you heard a claim of the form "Only X% of Americans know Y" you thought "there's something strange about that", then you get 1 rationality point. If you thought "I don't believe that", then you get 2 rationality points.