“Half truth is more dangerous than a lie.”

There is a useful insight here, but I would be careful with the word “more dangerous.”
A half-truth can be especially misleading because it contains something true while leaving out information necessary to interpret that truth correctly.
For example:
“Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.”
True.
But if someone uses that fact to imply:
“Lincoln's only motivation was humanitarian concern for enslaved people,”
they have moved beyond the evidence.
The first statement is true.
The broader impression may be misleading because relevant context has been omitted.
This connects directly to my institutional argument:
Institutions can influence what is visible without necessarily making what is visible false.
That distinction is crucial.
A history textbook may contain entirely factual statements while still creating a distorted picture if it systematically excludes relevant facts.