Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth".
Likely because the headline implies intent (or expects its audience to assume intent), where it doesn't appear any intent exists.
If healthcare included the guaranteed right to a treatment where of adults spend therapeutic time at preschools, then a headline about providing healthcare to sex offenders would absolutely be relevant (as well as obviously truthful).
I disagree. Here's a simple modification I propose that's more accurate: “Sacramento Sheriff is sharing license plate reader data with states, including anti-abortion ones, records show”
This would be a bit like a headline including the phrase "serial killer trained at Harvard" to refer to Ted Kaczynski. I loathe Harvard, but I couldn't honestly claim that the nexus of Harvard and Kaczynski had any relevance to his terror campaign.
So, yeah, GP had a solid basis for objecting to the headline. Certainly one beyond the cynical, borderline clairvoyant explanation given.
It is newsworthy that certain CA precincts might be unlawfully sharing license plate data, and if SacBee is significantly under-reporting the extent of the sharing -- which is the main focus of the story -- in favor of their interpretation of the sharing, that is editorializing.
Nah, most fake news I run into is stuff like "The Russians destroyed 37 HIMARS" or "<place>'s school has a litterbox for a furry student" or "Trans people are hurting your kids"