Newsflash: AP strives for neutrality, sometimes makes missteps that bring derision from all directions, highlighting the successful effort to maintain neutrality.
This isn’t neutral at all.
There are more specific issues, too. In its entry for “methane,” the Stylebook accepts the term “natural gas” for methane-based fuel, as if calling it “natural gas” were perfectly neutral and factual. But this is actually a disputed term. Many environmentalists say it contributes to harmful “greenwashing,” since the word “natural” makes the gas sound harmless and clean. In reality, “natural” gas is highly artificial, since it requires intensive industrial processing before it’s usable, and it’s still a fossil fuel, so burning it causes the release of carbon dioxide, just like with oil and coal.
But as a Capitalist institution the AP isn’t allowed to acknowledge the causes of any social ills. Nor can it ever admit that what it strives for isn’t “Neutrality” it’s smoothing the edges off of the status quo. So instead of being able to examine why generational poverty amongst the black community is so rampant, they simply treat it like a force of nature – “Black” like Gravity.
Oh wow, it’s almost like
Sometimes makes missteps
This aren’t “missteps.” They are intentional choices to push a narrative. For example:
From the AP:
Use Palestine only in the context of Palestine’s activities in international bodies to which it has been admitted. Do not use Palestine or the state of Palestine in other situations, since it is not a fully independent, unified state. For territory, refer specifically to the West Bank or Gaza, or the Palestinian territories in reference to both.
Note that the restriction on using Palestine only in certain contexts, only applies to Palestine. You can discuss “Palestinians” but you can’t discuss where they currently live. The same restriction doesn’t for example apply to Kurdistan, Taiwan, Somaliland, Transnistria or Tibet.
You’re right that language shapes perception, and the AP’s choices aren’t always neutral in the deeper political sense—but that doesn’t mean they’re actively pushing a hidden agenda. Terms like “natural gas” are imperfect, but they’re also standard in global usage, which the AP adopts for clarity and consistency. That can reinforce industry framing, sure, but it’s more about convention and accessibility than intentional deception. There’s a difference between institutional conservatism and narrative manipulation.
On the Palestine issue, the AP’s guidance reflects international diplomatic norms rather than a deliberate erasure. It’s not that they ban discussion of Palestine—they just limit the formal use of the term to contexts where it’s internationally recognized. You can argue that this maintains the status quo, but it’s a move to avoid editorializing in contested geopolitical spaces. These aren’t clean or value-free decisions, but they’re also not propaganda—in other words, what has already been said: they’d rather tick off everyone in all directions than look like they’re picking a side.
Looks like it’s working.
Newsflash: It’s impossible to be neutral, since defining what’s neutral involves some form of bias from whose defining.
Newsflash: that doesn’t mean it’s useless to make the effort
Newsflash: yes it is because what happens is people begin thinking non neutral ideas are neutral and assume there’s no bias to said ideas when there clearly is which is the whole point of this article
Oh, you’re one of those people who thinks that you need to protect people from themselves.
