Jump to content

Talk:Associated Press

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nothing on governing structure and individuals with influence?

[edit]

I don't have much to add, came to wp to find out more, and there is nothing. This may be more important of other details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014‎

AllSides and Associated Press bias.

[edit]

Allsides is criticized by Wikipedia as sometimes paying attention to public assessment (by voting) concerning the bias of particular sources. About that, Allsides has a disclaimer for those who do vote that reads in part "Community votes alone don't determine our ratings, but are valuable feedback and can prompt us to do more research." However, in the case of the Associated Press (AP), given its huge impact on other media, Allsides has done a bias determination that is rather more extensive and has recently changed its rating of AP from "center" to "lean left" citing enough specific cases that Allsides has medium confidence in that rating [1]. AP can be wildly inaccurate and inflammatory, my own issue with them is their historical propensity for calling Nazi concentration camps, "Polish Concentration Camps." [2] This was so inflammatory that the Polish Government criminalized such accusations, which law has now been repealed [3]. Given the historical support of AP for the Nazis [4] and their recent tendency to say nothing good about Trump and nothing bad about Biden, AP for me stands for "Anti-Polish." I consider AP biased, often inflammatory and unreliable. 207.47.175.199 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 207.47.175.199 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-storozynski-poland-commentary-idINKBN1FM2OP
  3. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/poland-vote-holocaust-speech-law-1.4724088
  4. ^ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-associated-press-became-part-nazi-propaganda-machine-180958629/
Wikipedia is a far-left circle jerk. Don't expect factual information to be presented as it makes the communist trash look bad. 2600:1700:3350:37E0:29B9:3551:7949:ACD9 (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually added to the article that the AP has a slight left-lean bias, based on the Allsides report, as well as from AdFontes[1] (which says that AP has a middle bias, but does put them on the left side) and MediaBias/FactCheck[2]. I didn't mention an article from Biasly[3] which also says that AP is somewhat liberal. It got pulled down, though. I asked the person who pulled it why they did so and I am now waiting for a response. There are a few more articles that discuss the AP's political bias, such as this one, this one, this one, this one, and this one, but these are opinion pieces so they don't meet Wikipedia's standards. There is also this poll from YouGov,[4] which says that people think that the AP has a lean-left bias. There is also this research article[5] that says that the AP has a lean-left bias on the economy and the environment. PotatoKugel (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://adfontesmedia.com/ap-bias-and-reliability/
  2. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/
  3. ^ https://www.biasly.com/sources/ap-news-bias-rating/
  4. ^ https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49552-trust-in-media-2024-which-news-outlets-americans-trust
  5. ^ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10109099
The references used [1], with the exception of AllSides, are unreliable. Because the AllSides rating has a high confidence rating, it can be used. It might be best to indicate that the rating is a change from previous years.
I'm unfamiliar with biasly.com, am unaware of any discussions about it, and don't believe it is reliable after skimming through their website.
I'm not sure that the survey deserves mention, and we should be extremely careful not to mix or compare survey results from analysis like that of AllSides.
I wouldn't use the IEEE article because I can't find their methodology for categorizing news sources. Can someone find it?
As for the other articles you linked, I'm unclear if any of them are more than opinion pieces, so they shouldn't be used. --Hipal (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
What do you think about this source: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/ PotatoKugel (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussion or use of it at all beyond this.
I'm not clear how we could use it. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you very much! PotatoKugel (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definite article in title

[edit]

The AP seems to almost exclusively refer to itself as "The Associated Press" rather than "the Associated Press" (or just "Associated Press"). Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name), this would seem to mean that the title of the AP's Wikipedia article should begin with a definite article. Is there any specific reason that it doesn't? Oooooooseven (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I haven't read the whole thing, but this was discussed previously at Talk:Associated Press/Archive 1#Title of page needs to be "The_Associated_Press". Dan Bloch (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is The Associated Press, not Associated Press. In that discussion the "most common use" is referred to, ignoring that their own twitter and the name on the building in the image on the wiki page have the proper name. Another citation is that AP style says to use the for the first reference, which their own website does. I work with a press wire service and AP journos. I can't speak towards "most commonly known as" (who can? bots propagating falsehoods?) but I can speak towards "most correct." 2601:249:9301:89B0:24C3:D6DB:C3D6:1EBA (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are obligated to follow WP:COMMONNAME, and it seems that, as one commenter at the prior discussion put it, AP has a branding problem. This makes me ambivalent. But one thing we should certainly do is bold the official title at the start of the article. I'll do so and add a note. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JD Vance CouchFuc**, It made a withdrawal of a story I don't see it ever published.

[edit]

The AP has a problem, reliable sources and fact checker it is not. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/ap-runs-fact-check-on-claim-that-jd-vance-had-sex-with-a-couch/

So the fact checkers can be used. 2601:248:C000:147A:D0B2:4BB2:7082:1A61 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation as NYAP and WAP needs clarification

[edit]

The history section starts by describing the foundation of the NYAP. The foundation of the NYAP is where the May 1846 foundation date on the page for the AP comes from.

The Associated Press was formed in May 1846 by five daily newspapers in New York City

But then states

Initially known as the New York Associated Press (NYAP), the organization faced competition from the Western Associated Press (1862)

Furthermore, after to documented investigation into NYAP:

The revelations led to the demise of the NYAP and in December 1892, the Western Associated Press was incorporated in Illinois as the Associated Press.

The AP (formerly WAP) then later moved to New York.

By this account, surely it is the WAP that is the precursor to AP, as the NYAP folded and it was the WAP that became AP.

WAP does not have its own page.

Surely what is needed is details on the foundation of the WAP as the foundation date of AP and then include details of the WAP investigation that led to the shutting down of NYAP and WAP becoming AP and the eventual move to NY.

Or otherwise, if there is a reason the NYAP is considered the precursor to the AP, that needs to be stated. Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 08:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Associated_Press&oldid=1259399950"