First of all, might I suggest you take all government and "think-tank" statistics with a grain of salt. None of them are really the "TRUTH", they convey information that the party providing them wants you to know.
On unemployment: The government statistics are probably accurate in the way the government defines "unemployment". If a person had a job for one day during a month, he wasn't unemployed even if he's a rocket scientist who worked for one day standing on the street corner with a sign advertising the furniture shop in the mall having a "Going Out Of Business Sale". The government also does not consider a person as being unemployed if he's not actively seeking a job AND receiving unemployment compensation or searching for employment through a government agency.
On the other hand, the conservative "think-tanks" count as unemployed anyone who is not working (whether they have given up looking or just aren't looking for a job) AND whose job is such that they should have a higher pay, i.e., that rocket scientist I mentioned above. They generally count actual house wives (i.e., married women who aren't looking for employment and have no intention of looking for employment because they are raising and nurturing their children) as unemployed.
On politics in general: It's wrong to assume as facts anything reported by any of the news organizations, political parties, or political "education" organizations. All of them report the "facts" or the "truth" from a particular world-view. Often, people make the mistake of assuming a conclusion based on a particular set of facts to be the "truth" and any other conclusion to be false. While this is true of many things, it is not usually true of political issues.
For example: What is the truth about "minimum wage laws" or "unions"? There are a variety of statistics that can be taken in isolation which seem to "prove" the conclusion that such laws on these issues are beneficial and others that seem to "prove" the conclusion that such laws are detrimental. What the public policy of such laws are, however, cannot be determined on the basis of statistics alone. There may be good reasons to support some laws even if they are detrimental to the economy and to some individuals while there may also be good reasons to reject some laws even if they are good for the economy and some individuals. What is morally right is not always governed by facts, and truth is not always solely a computation of data.
It sounds to me from the post that the "truths" you were discussing which caused the stir were political and economic truths. When I saw the topic's title, I was thinking that it was about moral truths, but I don't believe that is what you meant. Moral truths are a bit easier because we have the guidance of the Church from AD 33 until around AD 1960 (the Conciliar sect being utterly useless for moral guidance). But, if that is what you were talking about, I would absolutely agree that most people in the world show a great hostility towards moral truth and doctrinal truth. That has been the case since the serpent denied the truth and Adam and Eve took the bait.
Political and economic truth, however, can very often be a matter of perspective.