Knowledge v. Corruption
There is a fallacy within corruptive knowledge, not that which is used as propaganda to set in memes of political strife, no, but in knowledge itself being that which corrupts. A book is just a book, filled with the thoughts of its transcriber, or parroted by another at the behest of its author. Nay, tis the wording, not the facts themselves, that can lead to corruption. When written in such a way that reveals traces of the writer's opinion, rather than academic fact, the author attempts to project their perspective of a topic onto the reader, however subtle or obvious it may be -- eg. the birds flee south for the winter, the use of "flee" implies fear or attempts at escape. This can be seen as either the opinion of the writer on what the birds feel, or to color one's perspective just enough to perceive birds as cowardly, or meek. A true academic would write "birds fly south for the winter". A neutral stance that is neither colored, nor evocative.