So, I pull up the Yahoo! homepage to do a search, and there, prominently displayed at the top of the page, in bold print no less, is a headline which shocked me:
"Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions," blares the latest AP headline.
What's that you say? The Obama Administration supports extending the abusive Bush-era Patriot Act? B-b-but he was supposed to bring change! He was supposed to be against these unfettered abuses of civil rights! OMG -- the Naderites are right! Obama = Bush! I read the news today! Oh, my!
http://news.yahoo.com/...
Just to be sure I hadn't misread the headline, I read the intro of the article:
"The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday."
OMG! The headline didn't lie -- Obama really does support extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act! It says so right there in the first paragraph! But wait . . . it gets worse!
OMG! It's worse than I thought -- not only does Obama support the Patriot Act, b-b-but he supports it against the wishes of civil rights groups and Congress, too! Paragraph 2 sets up the conflict:
Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.
Paragraph 3 continues the theme:
The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.
OMG! Obama supports widespread government snooping! And everyone -- liberals and conservatives alike, are against it! Civil rights groups have long criticized the provisions up for renewal, but there it is -- Obama SUPPORTS those provisions! OMG, OMG, OMG!
Not until Paragraph 5, below all the photos and graphics, do we get this afterthought:
In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law.
Holy Lord! He's just like Bush! Despite all of the aforementioned abuse and criticism, the Obama DoJ sent out an announcement that the Obama Administration supports extending the provisions anyway! Oh, but I guess they are willing to consider additional privacy protections . . . Wait -- what? Obama isn't going to just rule by fiat, but will consider additional protections?
In Paragraphs 6 and 7, we finally hear the following:
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote Sen. Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the administration is willing to consider stronger civil rights protections in the new law . . . Leahy responded with a statement saying it is important for the administration and Congress to "work together to ensure that we protect both our national security and our civil liberties."
And then, after waiting all the way until the last line of the entire article, we finally discover that the ACLU is actually heartened:
"We're heartened they're saying they're willing to work with Congress . . . [It's] definitely a sea change from what we've seen in the past."
Wait, you mean the Obama Administration actually reached out to Congress and voluntarily indicated that they are willing to consider stronger civil rights protections??? And the ACLU applauds Obama's efforts?
So how does the AP capture the gist of all this in the headline? The same headline which is then blared in bold front and center on Yahoo? Do we get "Obama to work with Congress to expand protections of civil liberties under Patriot Act?" Nope. Maybe "Obama seeks Congressional input on Patriot Act renewal?" No, sir. Perhaps "Obama supports portions of Patriot Act, but okay with more protections?" No dice? C'mon, AP, how about just "Obama open to changes in Patriot Act?" Uh-uh. Nope. Not even "Obama supports extending certain Patriot Act provisions?" Oh, c'mon! Throw us a bone over here, AP! Not even "Obama still hasn't tortured anyone?" Not even that?
So, what do we get? Despite the Obama Administration affirmatively reaching out to Congress to discuss strengthening protections for civil liberties, despite Patrick Leahy responding in support of working with the White House to strengthen such protections, despite praise from the ACLU, and despite the fact that we're only talking about three specific provisions, not the widespread warrantless wiretapping under the Bushies, the fine folks at the Associated Press nonetheless felt that "Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions" sufficiently summed up the issues. Then one needs to read two-thirds of the way down to find out that no, Obama isn't proposing to renew the Patriot Act.
Why, if one didn't know any better, one might be so cynical as to suggest that instead of dispassionate, impartial reporting, the AP was trying to push a theme of Obama as Bush, of Obama breaking promises, and of liberal disunity.
Push that meme, AP. Push it real good.