How you're perceived, will determine how what you say, do, or present is interpreted.

As children we're taught to read thoroughly and objectively.  If you don't read thoroughly, you'll miss important details.  If you don't read objectively, your personal feelings, experiences, or opinions may change the meaning, intent, or accuracy of the reading or on the extreme end insert elements that weren't there at all.  As adults our reading skills may be further handicapped by relationships and experience.

A few days ago there was a short, lacking in substance and detail news article about a Utah school.  All it stated was 1) some of the parents were a little behind on the lunch account 2) this couldn't be determined until the student reached the cashier implying but not specifically stating that this had to be the first day of notice 3) lunches were thrown out in front of all the students 4) lunches were replaced by an orange and a milk 5) parents usually paid on accounts as notified -- That was all if you're pulling facts.  The rest was reporter commentary on the outrage, anger, and fall out.  This same article was posted by two of my friends.

(Names changed)

Liz is religious.  She's a business owner.  Most of her posts have some religious reference, inspirational text, or the words God or Jesus in them.

Rob is ex military.  He's an educator.  Most of his posts have some sort of political reference.  He posts news, satire, controversial topics.

They both posted the article.  The reactions, even from the same people, were different.  People tend to read the article as posted by Liz with Liz in mind.  They have empathy for the children and their families.  They speak of the injustice and the tragedy.  They talk of how no child should go hungry or be treated this way.  They speak highly of the one cafeteria worker that was helpless to do anything but had the compassion to cry at the plight of these children who remember.  This detail was in the fall out.

In contrast, Rob was viciously attacked.  I read things on free and reduced lunches.  I read the word freeloaders more times than I care to count.  I read the words irresponsible parents.  I read a lot of legislation that should be passed to do away with free and reduced lunches.  None of this was in this article.  The readers were associating past posts with the current one.  In other words they weren't reading objectively.  They read the article with Rob in mind.

Herein lies the danger.  How you're perceived whether or not it's entirely accurate, will in part also determine how everything you say, do, or present is interpreted.  While I believe you should always be yourself, I also believe there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.  An article is an article regardless of who presents it.  The facts don't magically change.