This truth/lies/fiction/storytelling conversation reminds me of the This American Life / Mike Daisey Story from a couple years ago.

There, mk makes a similar point to the one you are making: that there are stories that don't need to be embellished to make the audience sit up and pay attention. The truth is powerful enough.

China has real problems. Had Daisey visited coal mines, especially illegal ones, he probably wouldn't have had to embellish much to pull at American's heartstrings. However, he didn't do that. He visited Foxconn, and said that it was much worse than it was. I haven't been to Foxconn. However, my impression is that it is far from the worst example of working conditions in China.

But for some reason, I don't think a story about coal mines would have gotten the same amount of attention. Two years ago, news about Foxconn spread like wildfire and everyone knew that name. Similarly, your National Geographic link or Boston.com didn't go intensely viral either.

Does the fact that if it told a different story - one that were true - it wouldn't have gotten that level of attention change the fact that it is wrong to lie in this way?

I don't think so. However, perhaps it gives some insight into the motivation behind the half-truth stories. For that reason, I think we will continue to see them and be affected by them.