When a Half-Truth Also Misinforms

We live at a time when a news story can travel faster than the truth. A strong headline appears on a mobile phone, someone shares it, others react, and within minutes many people have already formed an opinion. Sometimes without reading. Sometimes without checking. Sometimes without listening to those involved.

That is why we need to be careful with any information we receive. This is not about living in permanent distrust. Nor is it about denying what makes us uncomfortable. It is about doing something more responsible: checking the facts, comparing sources, analysing the context and asking ourselves whether the information was presented fully or only in a convenient way.

The case of the article published by Semana about UNAD leaves a clear lesson. We are not necessarily dealing with a completely false news story, because the text mentions facts related to a criminal investigation. The problem is different, and it is serious: it is a publication built on half-truths, incomplete information and an approach that can lead the reader to an unfair conclusion.

The Semana article itself acknowledges that the investigation arose after complaints filed by UNAD’s leadership. It also states that the university was recognised as a victim within the criminal proceedings, due to the damage caused to its good name, its systems, its workers, students and graduates (Semana, 2026).

That fact is not minor. It changes how the case should be read. It is one thing to say that certain people allegedly manipulated internal systems. It is another to leave the impression that an entire institution is under suspicion. It is one thing to speak about specific individuals who may be responsible. It is another to damage the image of a whole academic community. And it is one thing to report with rigour. It is another to present the facts in a way that ends up producing generalised distrust.

In its official statement, UNAD clarified that it was the university itself that detected the manipulation of the information system, activated internal controls, carried out the disciplinary investigation, identified the contractors involved and referred the cases to the Office of the Attorney General. It also clarified that no participation by university directors was identified and that the facts do not compromise the validity of degrees legitimately obtained by its graduates (UNAD, 2026).

So, the problem with the article is not only in what it says. It is also in what it fails to explain.

When information leaves out essential elements, it can end up misinforming even when it contains real data. That is the dangerous force of a half-truth. It appears to be true. It sounds convincing. It produces outrage. But it does not allow the reader to understand the full picture.

As a UNAD graduate, I can speak from my own experience. Earning a degree at this university requires discipline, reading, assignments, assessments, evidence, participation and the fulfilment of learning objectives. It is not a simple formality. It is not automatic. Those of us who have gone through that process know that behind every passed course there is time, effort and responsibility.

That is why it is unfair for a publication to affect, directly or indirectly, the good name of thousands of students and graduates who did fulfil their academic duties. People who studied, worked, submitted evidence, took assessments and reached their academic goals legitimately.

Let whoever needs to be investigated be investigated. Let whoever acted wrongly be sanctioned. That is necessary. No institution should tolerate corruption. But it is one thing to report specific facts, and quite another to cast a shadow over an entire university.

That is where journalism must be more careful.

A serious media outlet does more than publish striking details. It verifies. It contrasts. It consults the parties involved. It distinguishes between individual responsibility and institutional status. It explains the context. It does not turn a specific case into a general suspicion. It does not use the impact of a headline to push the reader towards an incomplete conclusion.

Colombia’s Ministry of ICT has warned that false or misleading news often involves readers emotionally, attracts attention and encourages viral sharing. It also recommends confirming the source, checking the date, contrasting the information and turning to official channels before sharing (MinTIC, 2020).

That recommendation applies here. Before believing a news story, it is worth asking: was the party being referred to heard? Does the headline fairly reflect the content? Does the story distinguish between people involved and the institution affected? Are verifiable documents presented? Is the official response cited? Does the news story inform, or does it seek to trigger an immediate reaction?

An old Latin maxim applies here: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, that is, “false in one thing, false in everything.” I do not understand it as an invitation to automatically reject any uncomfortable information, but as a warning about trust. If a media outlet fails in something essential, such as providing proper context, corroborating sources or ensuring accuracy, readers have legitimate reasons to examine the rest with greater caution.

Proverbs 14:15 states it very clearly: “The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step”.

That sentence summarises what we need today: critical thinking. It is not enough to doubt. It is not enough to believe. We must check. Compare. Listen. Analyse. Think before sharing. Think before judging. Think before repeating an incomplete version as if it were the full truth.

In this case, the Semana article can be described as a half-truth publication, decontextualised and marked by weak journalistic contrast. It presents facts related to an investigation, yes, but it does not give the same weight to key elements: that UNAD reported the matter, that it was recognised as a victim and that the facts do not invalidate the legitimate effort of its graduates.

A well-informed society is not built on strong headlines, but on complete facts.

And as readers, we also carry responsibility. Every time we share a news story without checking it, we can help to inform or we can help to confuse. The difference lies in stopping for a moment and considering our steps. Referencias Ministerio de Tecnologías de la Información y las Comunicaciones. (2020, 8 de abril). ¿Por qué las noticias falsas también son un riesgo real? MinTIC. https://www.mintic.gov.co/portal/inicio/Sala-de-prensa/Noticias/126509:Por-que-las-noticias-falsas-tambien-son-un-riesgo-real

Revista Semana. (2026, 5 de julio). Exclusivo: así funcionaba el cartel de títulos falsos de la UNAD. Semana. https://www.semana.com/nacion/articulo/exclusivo-asi-funcionaba-el-cartel-de-titulos-falsos-de-la-unad/202621/

Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia. (2026, 6 de julio). Comunicado a la opinión pública: Precisiones institucionales de la UNAD frente a la publicación de la revista Semana. Noticias UNAD. https://noticias.unad.edu.co/index.php/noticias-unad/comunicado-a-la-opinion-publica-2026