Talk:Associated Press

Nothing on governing structure and individuals with influence?

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.

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 . AP can be wildly inaccurate and inflammatory, my own issue with them is their historical propensity for calling Nazi concentration camps, "Polish Concentration Camps." This was so inflammatory that the Polish Government criminalized such accusations, which law has now been repealed . Given the historical support of AP for the Nazis 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)

References

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)

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 (which says that AP has a middle bias, but does put them on the left side) and MediaBias/FactCheck. I didn't mention an article from Biasly 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, which says that people think that the AP has a lean-left bias. There is also this research article that says that the AP has a lean-left bias on the economy and the environment. PotatoKugel (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

Thank you!

What do you think about this source: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/ PotatoKugel (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Okay. Thank you very much! PotatoKugel (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there was a discussion on this, but I've removed this again. Allsides isn't a reliable source for things like this, it's been discussed multiple times at WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard (check the archives). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, how are you?

From the summary of the discussion by the archives and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources it appears that Allsides can be used when they have a High confidence rating. They have a high confidence rating here.

In addition, the Allsides review board rated AP News with a left-leaning bias before factoring in the results of the blind bias survey (which, from what I saw in the archives previously mentioned, was the potential problem with using Allsides).

As such, it seems to me that Allsides should be usable in this context. PotatoKugel (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Allsides, and most other such sites, are just parroting common US opinions. It's no different from saying people in the US think this is left leaning, but this is an international project not one dedicated to US opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that point. The line should be amended to say that AP's US political coverage has a US left-leaning bias. PotatoKugel (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about the following line: "While AP's US political coverage used to be in the center, it has recently moved to the left and now leans left (on the US political spectrum), according to AllSides"? Also, is "(on the US political spectrum)" redundant when talking about political bias of coverage of US politics? PotatoKugel (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So AP used to offer an extremely biased narrative (centrism) and now simply shifted its biases. Nothing lost, nothing gained. There is nothing neutral regarding centrism. One of my favorite Greek historians noted that a centrist is a reluctant right-winger, still eager to attack the leftists. Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that is a matter of opinion. I think many people value "balanced" news, which you can argue is centrist.

But conceding the point, what do you think about, "AP's US political coverage leans left (on the US political spectrum), according to AllSides"? PotatoKugel (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

As this is just Allsides opinion on the matter I don't think it's even due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources that disagree about this.

In addition, I have seen other articles where one or two sources were mentioned despite there being a half dozen sources that disagreed, such as this one. PotatoKugel (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not that any source disagrees with it, but rather that it's Allsides opinion. I'm sure if your dug round you could find some other similar sites, but they all suffer the same problem. It's an opinion of whoever is running the site. That other stuff exists isn't a good argument for why this should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Allsides is a reliable source, not some opinion piece. Every piece Allsides writes is "their opinion". I am unsure what you mean.

I did look around and all I saw were articles saying that the AP has moved to the left. None of them were reliable so I would not put them into the article. The point is, though, that circumstantial evidence suggests that Allsides' opinion is based.

Obviously, if you did find a reliable article that contests this it should certainly be put into this article but I have not seen one yet.

My point by referencing that other article was that there was a large an active discussion about this exact point with many editors. The conclusion was to put the minority sources in the article. I am simply saying that it seems that these many editors would agree that a reliable minority source can and should be put into an article. PotatoKugel (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Allsides is reliable for the opinion of Allsides, it's inclusion bin this or any other articles still has to be relevant for inclusion. That Allsides believe one thing or another is irrelevant to this article about an international organisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry can you explain what you mean.

Allsides is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. That means it is reliable for more than just the opinion of Allsides, I assume. Obviously Allsides is a valid source for the opinion of Allsides. Infowars is a reliable source for the opinion of Alex Jones. Obviously, this is not what is meant when Wikipedia refers to something as a "reliable source". It means that it is reliable to use to ascertain facts.

As such, I don't understand why you think what Allsides thinks is "irrelevant".

Trying to clarify your opinion, what would you say if the New York Times or the New York Post published a review of AP's coverage and concluded that it had a left wing tilt? Would you think that this is similarly irrelevant? If not, can you explain the difference?

As to your point of AP being an international organization, we have previously discussed this and I agreed to your point that Allsides should only be mentioned in the context of AP's US political coverage. PotatoKugel (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You haven't explained why what Allsides thinks is relevant to the article. Allsides is a primary source, it's reporting on something that is created by Allsides. Secondary sources are always preferred, so has any secondary sources reported on what Allsides has said about AP? If not why should it be included in the article? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I am very tired today and I am having a hard time understanding you.

Perhaps this example will clarify for me what your opinion is: NASA publishes an article that, according to Neil Armstrong, the moon, despite popular opinion, is NOT made out of cheese. (Shocking!) Where does this article belong if being referenced on Wikipedia? Does it belong in an article on NASA's opinions on things, in an article on the moon, or both?

I also am not understanding why you are referring to Allsides as a primary source. Is the New York Times a primary source for the opinion of the New York Times? Is literally anything simply a primary source for the opinion of the entity publishing that source?

In addition, as referenced before, there was a discussion about Allsides. I assume that the discussion was about using articles found on Allsides' website. It wouldn't make sense that the discussion was about using Allsides only when quoted by a reliable source. Allsides (like anything else) may be used if referred to by a reliable source (as far as I am aware).

Further, Wikipedia allows the use of primary source "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." as stated here. I believe that my usage of the Allsides article would qualify for this (granting that this article is a primary source). PotatoKugel (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes NASA talking about NASA is a primary source, as is NYT talking about NYT. For instance is NYT publish an article about their own circulation figures that would be primary. Primary sources are absolutely allowed, but this isn't a statement of fact. Also just because it can be verified doesn't mean it must be included, included content must be verifiable but not all verifiable content must be included.

So again why is Allsides opinion of the political leaning of AP due for inclusion? What about Allsides view on the matter makes it important in anyway? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that NASA talking about NASA or NYT about NYT would be primary.

I don't believe that that applies to this. This is Allsides talking about AP (or, I guess, it is Allsides talking about research done by Allsides about AP).

Why would the article not be due for inclusion? Allsides (a reliable source) has conducted reliable research about the political bias of AP and concluded that there was some bias. Political bias is important (I assume you agree on this but if not we can certainly discuss) and it seems from a reliable source that the AP exhibits political bias. I don't understand why it wouldn't be included.

I don't think that Allsides in particular should be included. If there are more sources that discuss AP's political bias or lack thereof I would certainly agree that they should all be included. I just haven't found any yet despite some research. Obviously if you find something, then I would absolutely agree that it belongs in the article. PotatoKugel (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is Allsides talking about their own determination of the political leaning of AP, that's primary. What secondary source shows that Allsides determination is in anyway important. That this is the political bias of AP is just Allsides saying so. What research did they conduct and where is it published? The link shows they have been conducting polling of the American public, and even the earlier 'editorial review' is just matching it against the opinions of the US public. Maybe it's reliable for "The American public are of the opinion that it's left leaning", but again why is that due for an organisation that publishes all over the world?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by "What secondary source shows that Allsides determination is in anyway important."? As far as I am aware, a secondary source is needed to interpret a primary source, not to decide if the primary source is important.

"The link shows they have been conducting polling of the American public, and even the earlier 'editorial review' is just matching it against the opinions of the US public." To me it sounds like you are saying that you do not believe that the research of Allsides is reliable. However, as discussed, this is not the determination of the discussion about the reliability of Allsides.

"Maybe it's reliable for "The American public are of the opinion that it's left leaning", but again why is that due for an organisation that publishes all over the world?" I believe that AP's US political coverage is important. It is referenced by many widely distributed publishers in the US. Do you disagree with this? As stated before, the edit should mention the fact that this is just a discussion of AP's US political coverage. PotatoKugel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

That something is due for inclusion can sometimes be shown by secondary sources reporting on the matter, that other sources think it's important is a reason for Wikipedia to think it's important.

I don't think they are reliable but if they are reliable it's only for what they are reporting, which is their own determination of APs political leaning based on nothing more than US public opinion. Anything more than that this is the opinion of the US public isn't in the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the discussion of Allsides on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#AllSides "AllSides has been referenced in reliable sources as an accurate source for media bias ratings" and when AllSides does a review of a publication and gives that review something it refers to as a "high-confidence rating", then (according to the Perennial sources note), "....the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts." In the AllSides entry about the Associated Press, AllSides gives that entry a high-confidence rating, which means that (according to WP editors as summarized on Perennial sources), that AllSides entry is considered reliable as an accurate source for media bias ratings. Would readers of this Wikipedia article be interested in reading information about what a reliable provider of media bias ratings has to say about the Associated Press? If so, I think it's safe to include the media bias rating the Associated Press got from AllSides. Novellasyes (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

But why is it due inclusion? Again verification doesn't guarantee inclusion. That it's considered reliable doesn't mean it should be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying that Allsides simply presents the view of Americans about whether a certain source has political bias. Assuming I understand you correctly, then I hear why you don't believe the Allsides review belongs in the article. While it may be nice to hear about the opinion of some random people, that can hardly be considered fit for an encyclopedia.

However, I don't believe that this is what Allsides is presenting. They are presenting whether a source is politically biased as defined by the American political spectrum, not whether a source is politically biased in the opinion of random Americans.

I believe that this is so because in the review of Allsides in the Perennial Source notes it says, "while another significant minority argued that its methodology, which is partly based on the opinions of users, makes it unsuitable for Wikipedia." (emphasis added.) If the point of Allsides was to determine the opinion of Americans, the fact that they use polling would actually be a great way to ascertain the opinion of Americans (assuming the poll is conducted properly), not a reason to discount Allsides at all.

Furthermore, Allsides' website talks about trying to ascertain a source's political bias. It does not say that they are trying to ascertain if Americans think a source has political bias. They do use polls, but that is a tool they use to help them with their stated goal, namely, ascertaining a source's political bias.

I believe that a source's political bias (again, not that a bunch of people think it has political bias, but that it actually displays bias, as decided by experts) is something noteworthy and does belong on Wikipedia. PotatoKugel (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)