In this mildly negative story on the Obamas Hawaiian Trip in the WSJ.com, there is this:
On New Year’s Eve, the Obamas watched “Avatar” in a shopping-mall theater cleared of people. “I must admit that when you close down shopping centers you’re pushing the envelope of the patience that people might have otherwise,” said Hawaii Democratic state senator Clayton Hee.
Now you don’t want to be like Senator Hee or the WSJ, for if you read this: First Family Sees ‘Avatar’ in 3-D – The Caucus Blog – NYTimes.com, you’d see:
The Secret Service cleared one of the 10 theaters at the Windward Mall’s multiplex in Kaneohe for the Obamas, who arrived for the special screening around 9:20 a.m., well before the day’s regular showings get underway so as not to inconvenience other moviegoers. The other nine theaters at the multiplex are open as usual.
Note that the only one of the 10 theatres were shutdown and that it was shutdown at 9:20 in the morning! Wow. I can see how that would really push “the envelope of patience” of the millions of people who want to be in THAT theatre at THAT time in the morning.
Smart People I Know 
Hey Bernie,
Reading the full WSJ article, the paragraph you quoted seem to serve a different purpose. The article’s theme is about how secluded the Obamas have been during their vacation in Hawaii, and that people there may be missing some more interaction with the President. I don’t think the paragraph meant to say: “people may get impatient because they wanted to see Avatar but the movie theatre was closed for the presidential special screening”. It meant rather: “people may get impatient because they wanted to see Obama but the movie theatre was cleared for general public access”. Having said that, I agree with your overall statement: getting news from multiple (and preferably opposing) sources helps us to gain a broader perspective on what’s being covered.
I think you analysis is generous, Aaron, but I will stick with mine, though it is less so. As I read it, I felt there was enough negative connotation and ambiguity to read it in a negative way. I would be surprised if the WSJ tried and failed to be positive or even neutral.
Oh, make no mistake, the article intends to have a negative connotation towards Obama. But it’s not trying to say that people would be mad at Obama for closing a theatre when they wanted to see a highly popular movie. It is saying that Obama should give locals more opportunities to interact with them, and closing the theatre for a private screening is not helping. I also disagree with that argument, by the way (what other option would he have, actually?). My point is that when I first read your excerpt, it gave me a totally different idea compared to reading the whole article. This very conversation shows that the more angles you add to a story, the richer it becomes.