An example. The Leader himself continues to talk about 9/11 and Iraq together. The news folks evaluate events according to verbal dictionary-style definitions. For 'to lie' they use something like 'to state a falsehood explicitly', and so they are left saying 'Bush didn't lie'. In general semantics, we do not enslave ourselves to the dictionary; if someone purposely conveys falsehood by speech, we do not nitpick, we call it a lie. Scientifically—that is, according to appropriate theoretical structure—Bush's statements act as lies, so we would call them lies. If necessary to eliminate ambiguity, we would perhaps call them 'lies by innuendo', but you would not find us sending the message 'Bush didn't lie' when Bush was doing just that.
There are also 'lies of omission', again not recognized as lies by the media, even though lawyers and judges recognize them.
Science has worked our way for a long while now. For example, with Isaac Newton, 'motion' and 'absence of motion' became the same 'thing', despite the dictionary, and were called 'inertia' (a term originally implying lack of motion). Our journalists are not trained in such 'thinking'.