I only really see this as a relevant objection if the "omitted" information is such that it distorts what is actually presented. Is that the accusation? Or are they "biased" because they didn't publish this next to a counterpoint about how wonderful internal combustion engines are?
Emotional manipulation by only presenting a view which aligns with your desired policy outcomes — but not the contrast, eg that ICEs enable modern farming — is classic propaganda technique.
I'd add manipulation by picking phrasing you want to though... Like "ICEs enable modern farming". Machines/vehicles are one of the things that enable modern farming, it's ICE that's currently the most common power source for them - but ICE is just one implementation of it and can be replaced.
Why does an investigative reporter need to tell me that fossil fuels can be used to operate a tractor? We knew that already. No investigation is required.
