Only when it's dishonest. And there was no need for dishonesty in this case. The AARLC could have compiled the records of Democrats (and Republicans) on votes for intelligence funding and reported the scores, just like any number of other groups (conservatives, liberals, libertarians, environmentalists, unions, etc.) do all the time for their sets of issues. Then the AARLC could have sent out a press release blasting those legislators who had low scores, and/or the entire Democratic Party if its average score was low.
Instead the AARLC tried to pretend there was some sort of cover-up when there wasn't. What the AARLC did was no different in kind than if an environmental organization had sent out a press release demanding that Congressional Republicans release their voting records on how they failed to protect the environment. If the Sierra Club put out such a press release, in exactly the same format but with the key words substituted, would you be defending the them just as vigorously? Somehow I suspect not.