I think your point is one that almost sounds deep, but actually isn't. Just because some people say not to read much into something big, doesn't mean that everything else (unrelated things) all now need to have stuff read into. Much the same as just because somebody uses the words "that's a good idea", maybe about the idea of watching a TV show for example, your immediate response doesn't have to be "A good idea? That's exactly what they said about killing Jews in 1940s Germany."

It's a matter of intent. Looking at a few other articles, it seems it's a stock copyright notice added to the end of every article with 'Associated Press' given as the author.

"Changing the facts?" - I don't follow. The data is there in front of you, nothing has been changed. Most likely article authors have no capacity to remove that statement from their posts and that it's just boilerplate CMS content.

We should not necessarily ascribe to malice what can be explained through lack of functionality.

The Associated Press wrote the following:

  "Text of a July 2, 2013, letter to Edward Snowden from his father and
   father’s attorney

   Here is the text of the open letter Lon Snowden, along with his attorney,
   Bruce Fein, wrote to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. The letter was provided
   to The Associated Press."

The inclusion of Mr. Snowden's letter to the Associated Press's original title and introduction makes this a derivative work for which copyright protection is available[0].

Even without that (or if my understanding of a derivative work is incorrect) you are construing mechanical output of boilerplate CMS content as a specific intent to claim copyright, an assertion which lacks supporting evidence.

[0] http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf