It really depends. Certainly it is biased evidence, but it is evidence. What is it contrasted against?
I mean: if there is no evidence that a statement is correct, the statement is extraordinary and there's only a biased claim disproving it, it seems normal to accept the biased evidence.
For example: people claim that they have been abducted by aliens, but have no convincing proof of it. Such claims have been investigated by the government and found unsubstantiated. The original claimants complain of government bias. I'd say that the government statements do have a value here.
Another example: people claim that a Sheikh has said something outrageous, but have no convincing proof of it. Such claims are denied by the Sheikh. I'd equally say that the Sheikh is innocent until proven guilty.
Clearly, it is thin evidence, but it's still better than no evidence. It seems to me a case of "extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence". Or any evidence :-)
On the other hand, calling it a "hoax" requires further proof. There are many reasons why people would claim to be abducted by aliens. Normally, they are not creating a hoax, but maybe suffer from psychological conditions.