You might be interested in this website which shows the ways the WTS tries to hide information in the Proclaimers Book.
Divide and Hide
Although described in its Foreword as "objective" and "candid" Jehovah’s Witnesses-Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom reads like a clever piece of propaganda. But perhaps the slickest trick of all is the very format of the book itself: unlike history books which present matters in chronological order, this one covers JW history topically. The result is that the accounts of embarrassing episodes, when not omitted entirely, can be fragmented into less embarrassing bits and pieces related in different parts of the book.
These bite-size fragments are easier to swallow that the whole truth presented clearly in one place. See, for example, how information about the Society’s false prophecy for 1925 is broken up into separate discussions on pages 78, 425, and 632 -- each with a different excuse or euphemism to help JWs dismiss the episode as unimportant, or at least excusable.
Moreover, the topical arrangement allows the book to pull matters out of the context of surrounding events and to portray them differently in a topical context. For example, discussion of Charles Taze Russell’s religious affiliation during the decade following 1870 is broken up into separate discussions on pages 43-48, then 120-122, then 132-135, and finally page 204.
So, when the book says on page 204 that "The operation of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has undergone significant changes since Charles Taze Russell and his associates first began to study the Bible together in 1870," readers may have forgotten that Russell was still part of the Adventist organization until 1879, as revealed in the earlier material, and that therefore a separate "organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses" was not operating at all in 1870.
Similarly, on page 147 the book presents a 1962 doctrinal change (on the interpretation of Romans 13:1) as "progressive understanding." But information presented separately on page 190 shows that the ‘new’ view was already being taught by C. T. Russell back in 1904. The 1962 teaching was not really new at all, but was a return to an old viewpoint. It was actually a back-and-forth doctrinal flip-flop, but the book hides this fact by separating the different parts of the story. (continued)