Previously, I have pointed out how the Associated Press misrepresents their stories (see my blog post here).  Well, not surprisingly, they continue to do so.  Observe the following headline: Officer wrecks squad car 29 minutes into job

So, what are we to expect from this story?  On whom does the fault for the accident fall?  The police officer?  Well, let's read the story, then, and see if we can't find the truth (inasmuch as AP cares to report such):

Jul 16, 2:06 AM (ET) HOBART, Ind. (AP) - Police officer Tim Pochron's first day on the job went poorly: Less than a half-hour into it, his squad car was wrecked in a crash.

Pochron was inside his house at 12:29 a.m. Monday when someone hit his new squad car parked outside, as well as a tree, police said.

Oh, so it wasn't the police officer's fault?  How were we to know that based on the headline?  But wait, there's more:

The driver tested positive for drugs, was arrested and taken to a hospital, police said.

Not only was the police officer not at fault (heck, he wasn't even in the car!), but the one who caused all of the ruckus tested positive for drugs.  Imagine that.

I have a better headline for you AP: Driver under influence of narcotics crashes into parked police cruiser.

Honesty is usually the best policy.  Somehow, I'm not so sure that the Associated Press even has a policy.

Headline from the Associated Press today (July 10, 2008): "Bush readies pen; Relishes signing wiretap bill"

Relishes?  What newsworthy purpose does that adjective serve in that lead?  It's as if the AP envisions the President sitting at his desk, drooling with rabid anticipation while waiting for the bill to arrive from Congress.  The article starts:

President Bush is poised to sign a bill that overhauls the bitterly disputed rules on secret government eavesdropping and grants immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the U.S. spy on Americans in suspected terrorism cases.

How incredibly misleading.  Allow me to do some simple research; something that the AP appears reluctant to do.  A simple Google search on FISA can easily take one to the US Code in question.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Emphasis mine.  Taking a look at section 1801 for the definitions:

§ 1801. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

Nowhere does this Title mention anything about American nationals.  The administration's "spying", by way of FISA, in no way targets citizens of the United States.  Not that the reporter took any time to research this fact-- that would not mesh with the obligatory anti-Bush bias that the mainstream media has been promoting over the last eight years.

It is no wonder that the MSM has lost much of its credibility.