I just couldn't let this one pass.

I noticed as of late a tendency in OneNewsNow. They routinely get their new stories from Associated Press, and publish immediatly with minimal editing. The story stays up for a day or two, while ONN's editors produce their own version, and the AP story then vanishes from the site to be replaced with their own. This is actually a common practice in news sites, so I'm not complaining about that. AP provides the breaking news, while the site's own writers lag a little behind in adding their own commentary and analysis.

In this case though, it highlights an interesting contrast, because it allows us to see exactly what a ONN article looks like both before and after they edit it.
Before: Obama administration suing pro-life groups
And after: Obama's DOJ ups ante on pro-life groups

The AP story is of how, under Obama's influence, the DoJ has increased it's enforcement of laws passed to ensure access to abortion clinics, and in particular how much of this is nessicated by the increasing use of violence and threats from pro-life activists. The ONN version is how the DoJ under Obama's influence is systematically violating the freedom of peaceful protest of pro-life activists. What surprises me is just how dishonest the edits are. Take, for example, this extract from the AP version:

In civil court, one of the latest cases is a Kansas lawsuit filed last month against an abortion opponent who allegedly sent a threatening letter to a doctor. The government sued Angel Dillard when she wrote that thousands of people across the nation where watching the doctor and suggested she check under her car daily for explosives.

Citing First Amendment protections, Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled that Dillard's letter was not a "true threat" because she did not personally intend to harm the doctor. He refused to issue a preliminary injunction that would have kept her 250 feet away from the doctor, her clinic and her home.

Now compare it with ONN's account of the same incident.

In one case, a Kansas woman wrote a letter to a physician who planned to open a Wichita abortion facility. She was taken to court as a result, but a federal judge ruled in the woman's favor based on her constitutional rights. No laws were broken.

Gone is any mention of the woman's implicit threat of murder. This can't even be blamed upon an honest editor just hearing a different account of events: He wrote that article based upon exactly the same AP piece that I quoted above. The deliberate ommision of the threat in order to turn Dillard into an innocent old lady writing conscientious letters is nothing less than a total lie. And, as if that's not enough of a lie, he doesn't just ommit the violence. No, he goes one better and outright denies that it's a threat of violence at all to warn someone that they may be murdered if they don't do as the letter-writer asks.

Yet, he says, the federal government took a Kansas woman to court for writing a letter to the physician -- a letter containing no threat of violence whatsoever.

The article goes on in a tangent about how Democratic party supporters use violence to intimidate voters.