The “Bible of journalism” claims to be a neutral arbiter of style. But its rules are political, and their tepid liberalism only helps to maintain the status quo.
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.
This aren’t “missteps.” They are intentional choices to push a narrative. For example:
From the AP:
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.