IAEA reported significant cooperation, but AP concludes that more UN sanctions should be imposed

Despite the fact that Iran's Plutonium-experiment issue (one of the few outstanding issues of Iran's nuclear activities) was recently resolved, and despite the fact that IAEA and Iran created a work-plan/timetable for to resolve the remaining issues, many mainstream media outlets try to downgrade such deals and convey the wrong impression. This is an example:

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday reported "significant" cooperation from Iran with its nuclear probe but noted it was still enriching uranium, prompting calls for stepped up U.N. sanctions from Washingon and its allies.

This paragraph implies that enriching uranium is illegal for Iran, and she should be punished for doing so, whereas enriching uranium (reactor level, of course) is a right to NPT signatories and many countries (including those without nuclear weapons) are currently doing so without any sanctions being imposed on them.

Why/How did AP draw such conclusion? From when enriching uranium prompts calls for UN sanctions?

Reporting both positives and negatives of a deal isn't bad at all, but doing so in a one-sided manner is not only unprofessional, but sometimes dangerous. Specially when United States threatens to attack Iran almost once a week on the basis of baseless allegations. (and yet it is Iran who is the suspect in threatening the world peace!)