"Truth" in editorials?

I really hate when a source takes a quote from the philosophical opposition out of context to strengthen its own argument. Even when I largely agree with the source.

This seems to have happened in our class reading assignment. We were told to read http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//speech/libraries/topic.aspx?topic=patriot_act&SearchString=internet. Specifically, this part got to me:

Others contend the ACLU’s attack against Section 215 is overblown. Heather Mac Donald, a fellow with the Manhattan Institute, argues in an August 2003 column in The Washington Post that “Section 215 merely gives anti-terror investigators the same access to such records as criminal grand juries, with the added protection of judicial oversight.” She rejects the staunch opposition to the provision by many in the library community, writing: “By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections they may have had in their reading habits.”

This makes me angry. I believe that the books you read, the TV you watch, the Internet sites you frequent are your business, not that of law enforcement. Only in this way can open information be exchanged.

Well, it turns out that the quote at the end of my italics was taken out of context. The original article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A34482-2003Aug22&notFound=true

The relevant paragraph:

The ACLU also argues that Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But like it or not, once you've disclosed information to someone else, the Constitution no longer protects it. This diffuse-it-and-lose-it rule applies to library borrowing and Web surfing as well, however much librarians may claim otherwise. By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections they may have had in their reading habits.

I really disagree with the author's point here. But the first time I italicized this, the author looked ill-informed and dumb. In context, she makes a nuanced argument after establishing a "fact". So although I believe she's wrong, she is not likely ill-informed or dumb.

The author of the first article listed here should be ashamed. He deliberately (my guess; I can't prove that) obfuscated a quote from his opposition in an attempt to prove his point. If he thinks that his audience can be persuaded to the other side of this argument by a disclosure of what's really going on, perhaps his argument is flawed from the start.