Hence "or something similar"... I'm attempting to draw a parallel to a common PR tactic that has a rather remarkable track record of being disingenuous.
even though the parallels are disingenuous, I would refrain from citing this as a reason for feeling suspicious.
However, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section.
So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.