Yeah. Part of the EFF's job is educating us. When they add such slant they lose credibility in my book. They're still great at keeping tabs on government actions that impact tech.
[1] Both of which are organizations I hold in high esteem, so that's not a negative comparison.
That sounds like a lawyer's perspective. You could say that about anyone working towards any particular goal. Please pardon my disagreement.
One of the EFF's jobs is to educate technologists. When they use slanted language, they lose some readers/"students".
The EFF has many roles, including educating and lobbying the government. Totally fine if you want to call it advocacy too. I often find myself digging for extra facts after reading their slanted positions. I wish they'd do full reporting of both sides more often. C'est la vie.
If it barely entered the public consciousness, sure.
In the case of Java though, I think it's actually more recognizable than this committee, which personally I'd never heard of. Between the Oracle vs. Google lawsuit, the browser plugin vulnerabilities, and Java just being such a popular computer language... I'd assume a lot of laypeople have heard of it. Though many might not realize JavaScript is a different language.
That wouldn't be good journalism. It would give the reader an inaccurate depiction of what the lawsuit is really about. It would be good lawyering, depending on which side you are on. A classic lawyering tactic is to use the most favorable (to your side) characterization of something you can justify.