Talk:Associated Press/Archive 1

message: If we're going to list every retracted story that AP, or any other wire service, has run over the years, we're going to have to double the size of wikipedia! So I removed the long, rambling account of one such case, since it lacked context. Discussion about the merits, or lack thereof, of the wire service are certainly valuable additions to the article, but not in the form of a rant. - DavidWBrooks 16:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retracted Stories 

message: Is the use of pictures made by AP on Wikipedia covered by the fair use principle? Meursault2004 13:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it, since member organizations pay to use them. - DavidWBrooks 16:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrights 

message: The article states that asap was cancelled in October of 2007 in the past tense.  There are either plans to cancel it in the future (in which case it should be in the future tense) or the date of the cancellation is incorrect.
GCNM 15:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Correction 

message: No specific controversy was described in the part of the section describing fornier. Being a conservative does not make one controversial. 
Sean7phil (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fournier paragraph under Controversy Section describes no controversy other than being a conservative 

message: It looks like there used to be something between the third and fourth paragraphs.  The fourth begins
It has also posed a threat to AP's financial structure. On April 18, 2005, at its annual meeting,
but it isn't clear what "it" is referring to.  
Sevesteen 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing it out; I reinstated the paragraph deleted with this edit. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing paragraph 

message: The lead is fairly long for the size of the actual article. I haven't looked it over fully but there also might be events in the lead not covered in the article. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article. Quadzilla99 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: do yous think ap has a right wing bias? i think it does.
I don't think AP has so much a right wing bias as a progressively irritating habit of publishing unvarifiable "facts".  There is not an article written these days that does not have a disclaimer that the individuals providing information are doing it on a condition of anynomity because they are not authorized to or the information is "classified".  This is why people like Karl Rove get away with the kind of things they do. 
I can tell you that information that cannot be independently verified is absolutely worthless.  We all complain about how poor our performance as a nation and our Government has become.  It is largely because we all swallow these undocumented and unvarifiable sources as gospel.  We've become a country of fatted cattle that drink from the manure fed streams that AP and the other news outlets have become.  Watch the news folks, these idiots are down to interviewing each others reporters to cross check the same source.  It's idiotic and it's our fault.  Take some responsibility.  Vote and don't tolerate the unproffesional newsreporting that we see today.  News is not entertainment.  It's the information that you need to make informed decisions with.  
Don't let "fact" be dictated by ratings.  74.0.180.66 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a joke, the AP has a substantial left wing bias and is constantly trying to push it's kookery on the rest of us normal folks. ;) --71.232.157.145 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  right wing bias 

message: Some apologist for the AP deleted this a "random" mishap and deleted the post. It was actually a national news story and displayed a serious lapse in journalistic standards. it was widely reported as it got over 86,000 hits on Yahoo     , including major articles on the Huffington Post and Power Line.
: "Apologist" - well, glad to see you're approaching this in the mindset of assume good faith. If you think a celebrity goof-up is a "serious lapse in journalistic standards" that deserves prominent mention, then I think your priorities might be slightly out of whack. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton Hoax 

message: There is no source that says it is the largest news organization in the world. And even if there was, it would probably be an exaggeration. Doesn't BBC have the biggest audience anyway? Contralya (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest? 

message: I created a new "Controversies" section out of "Current events", as I had a "scandal" to move in from United States journalism scandals. I don't know if this is best for the article - but the story needed to be mentioned here (if it is mentioned there - the only place on WP it was mentioned). I directly moved all the text, as, per an AfD, that longer-list "article" may be merged into the simpler list of linked scandal-titles here: List of United States journalism scandals. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: *AP was a disambiguation page flagged for clean-up, however after some consideration I converted it to a redirect to this page. For more info please see Talk:AP. Marchije (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting [[AP]] back to this article 

message: The article states that "the AP is a cooperative owned by its contributing newspapers, radio and television stations in the United States" but it gives no indication of which papers and stations these may be. I for one think it is relevant and important information and should be included in the article, or at least linked to. --76.202.226.195 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "As of 2005, the AP's news is published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, in addition to more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters." ... that's a LOOOOONG list. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which ones? 

message: This is just a minor change, but should we rewrite the revenue totals to their decimal form (Maybe rouding three decimal places)? So instead of having $18,528,000, we can just write it as $18.528 million; maybe go as far as $18.53 million. It'll make it a little easier to read at first glance. 173.104.199.101 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue Totals 

message: The AP has become a well known tool of the leftist movement. If you want Wikipedia to be a joke to serious scholars forever then keep pretending that white is black and that AP is a balanced news source. It sounds more like Obama's mouthpiece at this point than anything else. They even lie and say that Americans believe things they do not (right now they're trying to say that a majority of Americans want fascist government controlled healthcare forced on them). 
It also routinely ignores stories that might be a boost to the conservative movement and cover any and every story that could some how make leftist/"liberals" look good.
Any conservative who's ever had any controversial belief has a criticism or accusation section. Right now the AP is at the very top of the leftist propaganda movement, that's a fact. You guys don't have to be fully honest but should at least acknowledge that a huge number of people feel that the AP is a joke and just a mouthpiece for a pagan movement that wants to take over the world with it's new version of religion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.157.245 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leftist bias section 

message: In the google search for Associated Press, the descriptive passage for Wikipedia-AP includes "is a very liberal american press agency." Someone, or somehow, "very liberal" has been added, which is not part of the descriptive on the main AP page of Wikipedia. Looks like political tomfoolery... Mrw1965 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this comment from the subpage found by clicking the link from "This article has an assessment summary page", but I think this comment is misplaced. "Assessment" seems to refer to the quality of the article. Lumenos (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Where does one find this "descriptive passage" you speak of? Lumenos (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Very liberal" in description 

message: Is this an inconsequential error or a controversy?  Who thinks, besides Newdow, of course, that it reflects a systemic bias or other problem with the AP?  It is inaccurate but what's the controversy?  It should be removed from this section. patsw (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Newdow oath of office lawsuit 

message: the name is "The Associated Press" (see stylings (when AP is spelled out) throughout their website at ap.org).  i am unschooled in how (and, as an unregistered wikipedia editor, probably unauthorized) to change an article's title.  as such, am hesistant to change "Associated Press" references in article to "The Associated Press."--71.183.238.134 (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  appellation of institution 

message: Like many news outlets, it would be a good thing to write about AP's coverage of the Mideast conflict. I was looking at a few articles, and all I could find was Israel says this or Israel does that, which might hint at the fact that AP gets its information from official Israeli government sources. ADM (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mideast Conflict 

message: Muddled.  AP countersued S. Fairey, the article states, after Fairey sued AP over ...what?....{Quoting:"Fairey had sued the not-for-profit news cooperative the previous month over his artwork, titled "Obama Hope" and "Obama Progress," arguing that he didn't violate copyright law because he dramatically changed the image."}  Is this factual?  It seems that one would not sue AP and argue that your work didn't violate copyright law, unless you had been sued initially over your work violating copyright law. Otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to sue in the first place.  Would there be?   
So what is the story here?  Did AP sue Fairey first, and then he countersued, and then AP countersued him again?  If AP sued first, then let's say so.  I don't have a dog in this fight, but it would be nice to make sense of the issue.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renglish (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shepard Fairey section 

message: The Associated Press helped to establish the fame of the fictional town of Hadleyburg in Mark Twain's short story "The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg."  Psalm 119:105 (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: We the Kids needs to be good in the class rooms and be repectful to other treachers so kids of Americans be nice and repectful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.4.253 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids 

message: I would like to suggest that the following paragraph be changed as I think that as written it is no longer true. Although the AP is still the largest news service in the USA , competitors like AHN have emerged. the AP's suit against AHN on Hot News requires the element of competition and AP even referred to AHN as a competitor.  
------
The economic demise of the long-time rival of the Associated Press, United Press International, as a major American competitor in 1993 left the AP as the only nationally-oriented news service based in the United States. Other English-language news services, such as Reuters and the English language service of Agence France-Presse, are based outside the United States.
Tomtasget (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Suggested regarding competition.. 

message: To what extent, if any, is there any central editorial board which monitors or shapes the point of view expressed in AP articles? For example is the Media Matters post titled 'AP falsely claimed Obama has "delivered no policy speeches" on campaign trail' inherently misleading due to the lack of central editorial control? I believe so, but stand ready to be corrected., see my comment on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Fred Talk 17:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial control 

message: In the last paragraph of the top section, it states that "[o]ther English-language news services, such as Reuters [...] are based outside the United States." Is this still true? Reuters was British until it was acquired by Thompson. Now, Thompson Reuters operates out of New York City.  Elunah であります  Rawr!  13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thompson Reuters 

message: This article in The New York Times presents Newton's side of the story, which is at odds with the AP's version of events.  It should be included. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And this source offers evidence that Newton was the victim of a hoax related to his work at the Justice Department. 71.22.40.31 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher Newton 

message: This section does not appear to be on par with wikipedia's writing standards, nor does it appear unbiased. Perhaps it is original research?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.165.117 (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if true, that section seems to describe trivial events that probably do not belong in this article. Minor controversies over news reports happen every day. I've moved the section here for reference in case anyone feels information in it should be salvaged. -- LWG talk 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan(R.O.C.) Presidential Election Section 

message: Why is the information about the Board Of Directors and who the individuals are here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.225.130 (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Aren't The Names And Positions Of The People On The Board Of Directors Included In The Article? 

message: I see a news service called "AAP" is that the same as "AP". It is on articles that look like AP articles. Here are some. Respond on my talk page please. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAP 

message: If it is true that "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. An Illinois Supreme Court decision (Inter Ocean Publishing Co. v. Associated Press) in 1900—that the AP was a public utility and operating in restraint of trade—resulted in AP's move from Chicago to New York City, where corporation laws were more favorable to cooperatives.", then the NYAP was not the Associated Press.  However, in its own "History" page, AP states that it was founded in 1846, which conflicts with these statements, but is consistent with NYAP having changed its name to the "Associated Press".  Hence, this Wikipedia article has a major error, which I do not have the knowledge to correct.14:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This is what the "Controversies" section says, yet not a single example is cited. Why not? Esn (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "AP has been accused of bias and dissemination of American state-sanctioned propaganda on multiple occasions."

message: Tim Wu, in his 2010 book The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, apparently says that the Associated Press was affiliated with the Republican Party during the Reconstruction Era.  (I heard him talking about this on the radio.)  He also said that it had an exclusive deal with Western Union making it the only real-time national news source (via telegram).  This would be interesting to corroborate and add to the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Union deal and Republican Party affiliation 

message: In the Biased Reporting Section, there is mention of Mark Lavie's book Broken Spring.  After summarizing some of Lavie's criticism of AP and allegations of biased reporting, the next sentence says that "Friedman noted the enormous influence of Human Rights Watch." It continues Friedman's criticism.  Who is this Friedman? I can assume it might be the well known journalist Thomas Friedman, but that's not right. They should have included Friedman's first name. Just thought I'd bring that to people's attention, especially the editor who included the sentences about Friedman's criticisms so they can write his full name in the first sentence about him in the Biased Reporting Section.
NapoleonX (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Reporting Section 

message: This paragraph (in the History section) is out of sync with the chonological narrative and makes sensational assertions without any specific evidence.
When the Associated Press was founded, news became a salable commodity. The creation of the rotary press followed shortly after which led to the New York 'Tribune installing high-speed press in the 1870s allowing them to publish 18,000 papers per hour. During the Civil War and Spanish-American War, there was a new incentive to write vivid, on-the-spot reporting leading to the Graphic Revolution. This occurred making man's ability to make, preserve and transmit images and print of these events much more feasible. Due to the fact that printing speed had been dramatically increased, this movement was legendary and has the Associated Press to thank for this achievement.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmccasland  (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph out of place, sensational 

message: I see the AP had net income -- aka profit after tax -- of $8.8m in 2009. 
So is it strictly accurate to call it a non-profit organization?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.161.250 (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't and really isn't. When a lot of profit seeking entities create an entity like this and share its work product, that biz unit may not generate profit on its books but it's a flat lie that that enterprise isn't a part of the profit seeking overall operation of that industry association, it just isn't itself directly. The personnel, expressed viewpoints, management, etc. show very clearly what the real situation is here. This is a fairly large trope in American society, much less so of course at the time of the formation of the AP. Today the main form it takes is in some web/internet venture that claims to be non-profit, when what's actually meant is they're still trying to find a way to "monetize" it. The AP member papers had that worked out from the beginning with the inclusion of the APs work product in the papers they sell. The only bright spot in this lying to one's self is that it shows people have a vague clue there may be something wrong with profit (as opposed to earned income, productivity and other things it's conflated with). Lycurgus (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-profit? 

message: This portion of the article seems to be very sparse. It could be fleshed out such that those looking for a general summary on the topic rather than to read through the tagged sources. Additionally, it appears to be rather biased because one of the sources tagged is by the Associated Press and the other source is the only to give an opinion on the AP article. 
Mhowie2915 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea slavery and overreach Section 

message: As shown in the time line, the AP has been struggling with a relatively slow financial decline. I believe there should be a section detailing how the Associated Press has been struggling in the past six years or so. This missing information makes the page appear out of date. There is only a vague reference to the decline of the once thriving news resource.  
Mhowie2915 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The financial situation of the Associated Press 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Associated Press. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219092206/http://www.ap.org:80/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_052109a.html to http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_052109a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141210153229/http://g.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/226351-associated-press-sells-out-journalism-principles-for-anti-israel to http://g.thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/226351-associated-press-sells-out-journalism-principles-for-anti-israel
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121203002/http://actnews.org/ to http://actnews.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hmm, so three years have elapsed since the AP pushed out their blog entry (April 2, 2013) about using the term "illegal immigrant".  Another organization commented on this, while restating their own stance.  Now the section Associated_Press#Illegal_immigrant has some strange mishmash of this and that smashed together.
The AP blog entry did not use the word 'dehumanizing'.  ABC news reporting on that blog entry (April 2, 2013) used that word, and pointed at their own prior blog entry (Oct 2012) that also used that word, along with much other commentary not mentioned in the AP blog.
Ahh, the original edit 07:13, 8 April 2013 misstated events, conflating the two blog posts.  I'm going to drop the sentence
::The blog stated that the term was dropped due to the term dehumanizing individuals.
as that is more properly true of the ABCNews blog entry.  (Oh, and all this is in reaction to someone dropping in the weasel word 'allegedly' modifying the quote of a blog of a comment on a blog of ... I'm sooo lost) Shenme (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildly morphing quotes 

message: Why is the description of the AP articles on "sea slavery" listed in the "Litigation and Controversies" section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.132 (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken placement of sea slavery passage 

message: The title of this listing is incorrect in calling The Associated Press "Associated Press." The latter is not the formal name of the organization. According to the AP Stylebook: 
Associated Press, The 
The newsgathering cooperative dating from 1846.
Use The Associated Press on first reference (the capitalized article is part of the formal name).
On second reference, AP or the AP (no capital on the) may be used.AP Stylebook 2017 Associated Press, The
I fixed all incorrect instances of this throughout the article, but was unable to change page title.
Wikirikki79 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently changed all cases of "The Associated Press" to "Associated Press" in this article, then saw that you had also recently changed them the other way. Complicating your suggestion is the fact that on their home page at ap.org they exclusively use "Associated Press", never "The Associated Press", even in their copyright statement. Be aware of WP:SPECIALSTYLE. I don't think we need to pay attention to their stylebook if they don't. Chris the speller yack 03:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Another complication is the article Associated Press v. United States, which strongly implies that "The" is not part of the formal name, or at least it was not in 1945. Chris the speller yack 03:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Chris. I agree that they have a branding problem. There is, however, no guidance on their use of "Associated Press." It's simply an informal name that they sporadically use. The AP Stylebook is their official "spokesman," and it specifically says that the formal name of the organization is "The Associated Press." The section that I copied out of the Stylebook includes the part in parentheses. I did not add it. I guess they can call themselves whatever they want, but unless there is recent, cited evidence that this cited evidence from 2017 is now out of date - or a typo in their publications - those who write about the organization should follow the Stylebook. Even if they refuse to themselves. Wikirikki79 (talk) 13:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of page needs to be "The Associated Press"  

message: Oof, I have three sources verifying the account.
 The first is a third party describing the incident, the second is AP's tweet admitting the incident, and the third is lasting proof of the incident. Topkecleon (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the only real claim of biased reporting was the act of putting that section under "Claims of Biased Reporting". The RT article doesn't even make such a claim. I was only adding sources. (Saying RT is not "particularly reliable" does not make that link an invalid source; as with all sources, it should be used with caution, although more perhaps than for some others. The contents of the RT article are demonstrably true, and it is the most significant news outlet that reported on the error.) Topkecleon (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia cannot decide if this is biased or not, only reliable sources can. As far as I can tell, AP didn't directly explain the change in the article itself. That's unfortunate, but its hardly a deadly sin. If RT is the most significant news outlet reporting on this error, that is a good sign that this isn't a significant error. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syria section 

message: We don't care about it's fancy mission statement  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 07:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: we certainly do care about its mission statement. It's not selling anything to Wiki readers so it's not an ad.  Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like advertisement the introductory part 

message: Nothing on ex-AP head Tom Curley's statements that the Pentagon was applying pressure (arbitrary detention) on AP's journalists during the Iraq war, and the 4,7 billion budget & 27000 employees for Pentagon influence operations?
'"Much like in Vietnam, "civilian policymakers and soldiers alike have cracked down on independent reporting from the battlefield" when the news has been unflattering, Curley said. "Top commanders have told me that if I stood and the AP stood by its journalistic principles, the AP and I would be ruined."'
San Diego Union Tribune
HuffingtonPost
MSNBC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.203.51.95 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on Pentagon pressure on AP journalists? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Twitter crash. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#Twitter crash until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 04:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Twitter crash" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: the history section includes the claim that: "When the AP was founded, news became a saleable commodity" and this I'm afraid requires a source. newspapers had been on sale for around three hundred years at that point, the first one in Europe was published in Vienna in 1566, and the AP was itself founded by three newspapers who were themselves already selling news. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinion, if this claim does not have a source it will need to be removed. Cottonshirtτ 05:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  In the future, please consider using the  template. Dan Bloch (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  unevidenced claim