Annals of superfluous accuracy

Here is a screenshot of a snippet from an AP Story:

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Tuesday that it's expanding the closed area, though it won't say exactly where until later in the day. Nearly 46,000 square miles, or about 19 percent of federal waters, will be shut under the expanded ban.

The story reported over on CNN's news blogs is even funkier:

The expansion to 19 percent means 45,728 square miles is now closed to fishing.

See: They took the accuracy even one step further and told you that it was 45,728 square miles, not [N]early 46,000. No sir! That would be inaccurate.

Of course, it would have been fine to say about one-fifth.

Now, look at that headline again: Oil spill to shut down 19 percent of Gulf fishing.

Of course, the oil spill cannot take such actions.

The correct headline should have been NOAA to shut down one-fifth of Gulf fishing.

I do not know enough to agree or disagree with NOAA's decision. However, why obscure who actually took the action? (By the way, CNN correctly states NOAA closes 19 percent of Gulf to fishing.)

But, I am going to point out: