Persuasive Techniques-When an author twists the truth to suit himself

[Teagan_18]

I am currently analysing an article for a LA piece and I've found that the author hasn't included the whole truth in some parts and in others he has changed the truth to suit his argument and even contradicted himself a few times.

He goes to state that the Attorney can't give 'direct answers to four questions' however the Attorney did give a three paragraph response in which he outlines the answers to the four questions. He did provide detailed answers to the questions however condensed four answers into one, three paragraph long answer.

In another instance the author states that "the department (the attorney generals office) could not respond directly to the questions as it was not allowed to give legal advice". I feel that the Attorney and his department are in the right here where as the author is placing them in the wrong. They were not allowed to give legal advice however they still provided a clear answer to all four questions in an indirect way.
The answer provided was very clear, repetitively stating the answers so no miscommunication could occur.

I feel the author did a pretty horrible job with his opinion piece as it isn't a strong argument. He twists the truth, leaves out important details and even contradicts himself.

Anyway, my question is; What sort of technique is this called? There is a name for twisting the truth and leaving out important details however I'm not sure what it is.

Any help would be great, Thanks!!

[Jason12]

even if there isn't a name for the technique you could just explain that the writer twists the truth in order to...