“The Associated Press (AP) is an American multinational nonprofit news agency headquartered in New York City that operates as a cooperative, unincorporated association. The AP is owned by its contributing newspapers and radio and television stations in the United States
People who subscribe to AP papers and their findings....
The Associated Press is biased, moderately to very biased. It isn’t like Pravda in that you *can* find the truth. However you have to look for it. Here is today’s example:
I am looking at pages 3 and 4 of my local paper. Page 4 has Associated Press “Washington Briefs”. They all feature “Trump” in the headline. None of them are about anything which HAPPENED, only about what someone is SAYING. One of these three is devoted to describing a technical inaccuracy in one of the president’s statements. Trump, Trump, Trump. Three times. No real news.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said it before and I'll say it more than just this time too. Bias is part of the human condition. Bias cannot be helped or controlled and while in some cases it may seem blatantly clear to the individual or agency being accused it might be hard to see it.
Many liberal Quoraians believe that President Trump is (fill in the blank), those feelings are biased as much as are those of us like myself who believe President Trump is thus far one of the finest examples of a President we have ever had. Yes, I expect to be blasted with negative comments and downvotes for saying it but the point is both of our feelings are biased and I can't help the way I feel anymore than a good liberal can throw away their Re-elect Hillary 2020 T-Shirt they bought in advance.
Back to the OPs question. Reuters and the Associated Press are both progressive media companies and therefore their bias will inevitably bleed through. You shouldn't blame either one or expect anything different out of them though, because to be completely unbiased would be inhuman.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, first off, “bias” in these Quora questions generally indicates that the organization in question prints things that do not fit the worldview of the person who wrote the question.
Real bias would be an intentional tilting of the news in favor of one political party or philosophy. For that, see Fox News and MSNBC or Mother Jones and the Manchester Union Leader. They are biased because their economic base wants stories that bolster their existing view of How Things Are.
Reuters is an enormous news organization that began with pigeons flying into London with news of ships coming into port so speculators had time to make money. Bias would only hurt their bottom line since most of their readers—who are in business and finance—don’t want anything but the facts. If they have a bias, it might be in favor of Britain and money.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press is exactly that; an organization of hundreds of newspapers, television stations, radio stations, etc. Their clients want facts and only facts. If the AP is sending commentary, their reader/owners want it marked as Commentary.
You may not like the things that emerge from Reuters or the AP, they make mistakes (and correct them,) and they can be misled by clever politicians. However, on the whole, they aren’t biased in any real-world sense of the term.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From a UK regulatory perspective they aren't considered bias, if that's what you're after.
From my own personal view however, I would argue that Reuters can have a certain bias, on selective issues.
I've been reading both Bloomberg and Reuters for a while now, and at first I thought they were both extremely neutral. Over-time however I've noticed that both can arguably be considered bias on some issues. An example would be the current UK Brexit debate. Reuters publishes a disproportionately high amount of articles saying how it will be 'dangerous' compared to articles for. Far more than many other newspapers do for example. Many of their articles on particular issues (i.e. Brexit, banking regulations etc) often feel like nothing more than 'mouth pieces' of Big Banks.
They also feature opinion pieces too. So again, you can find plenty of articles and opinion pieces that from my perspective contain elements of bias. Examples being geopolitical pieces, political pieces, analytical pieces, or even sometimes just opinions from professional bankers etc. It's only natural that such topics can be viewed as bias depending upon ones political / geopolitical views (and also given how political science, economics, elements of finance etc are largely social sciences). But since Reuters regularly features such articles, particularly on contentious issues often with higher ratios supporting one side of the argument, then it's only natural that some people can easily perceive this as being bias for one side of the issue.
Furthermore their writing style and choice of words when paraphrasing sometimes works against them too. Instead of picking words such as 'may', 'perhaps', 'suggested' they will often use words such as 'will', 'would' etc, effectively suggesting there is no doubt, and that this opinion is correct.
Anyways in conclusion you will find elements of bias in every newspaper, and yes, even including financial papers. At the end of the day however, it's important to note how one perceives bias also depends largely upon ones perception / interpretations / views. Personally I enjoy reading Reuters. Although I enjoy reading other sources too (which many people may say are more bias than Reuters is. The difference being that sometimes I just value different analytical approaches to forming opinions than what Reuters may provide, which is often very basic). So again, it's important to stress how it's all very subjective.
At the end of the day Reuters is still a very good news site and serves it's purpose of providing quick opinions, insights and financial news, and despite saying everything I have, it's still arguably one of the least bias news sources available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on what I am reading in Reuters, they show little to no bias through their headline wordings or content. Reuters wordings are neutral in connotation, yet specific to the story such as this headline “
Conservatives split again by Hammond's Brexit warning” and “
Republican declared winner of Ohio special congressional election. Associated Press, on the other hand, tried to label themselves as neutral like Reuters. Even though they said in their website that “ We are The Associated Press. We have a long-standing role setting the industry standard for ethics in journalism. It is our job — more than ever before — to report the news accurately and honestly” their reporters tell a different story ( no pun intended). Here are some of them.
I couldnt post the pictures, but here is the link...
Answer (1 of 33): So biased that they went to bat for Claudine Gay when she was fired for being an absolutely incompetent President of Harvard and a person who completely beclowned herself with plagiarism. And not just in an article, but in a tweet that said, well, lemme just post it. https://t...
www.quora.com
seems pretty obvious bias.
www.newsmax.com
apnews.com
