Is the Associated Press, and Reuters biased in any way?
Executive summary
Both the Associated Press (AP) and Reuters are widely rated by independent media‑bias auditors as highly reliable and minimally biased, though some assessments place AP slightly left of center while Reuters is typically ranked centrist to "least biased"; these differences reflect methodology and emphasis rather than wholesale partisan agendas [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. How major auditors evaluate Reuters
Multiple third‑party evaluators characterize Reuters as either centrist and reliable or among the least biased global news agencies: Media Bias/Fact Check rates Reuters “Least Biased” and “Very High” for factual reporting, noting extensive sourcing and a clean fact‑check record [1], AllSides’ blind survey places Reuters near the center [3], and Ad Fontes rates Reuters as middle‑bias and reliable for analysis/fact reporting [4].
2. How major auditors evaluate the Associated Press
Assessments of AP show more variance: Media Bias/Fact Check flags a slight to moderate liberal tilt in some coverage, particularly in word choice, while still acknowledging trustworthiness for factual reporting [2]; AllSides’ blind survey and bias meter lean AP left [3] [6], yet Ad Fontes and recent Media Bias Chart summaries place AP in the top‑middle area of high reliability and minimal bias alongside other legacy outlets [7] [5].
3. Why ratings differ — methodology, sample, and scope
Disagreements among auditors stem from methodological choices: blind reader surveys (AllSides) measure perceived bias across political perspectives, content‑analysis panels (Ad Fontes) score both bias and reliability across article samples, and MBFC combines factual‑reporting checks with qualitative judgments about language and sourcing [3] [4] [8]; these different lenses produce slightly different verdicts even when they all rank AP and Reuters toward the center.
4. Historical context and institutional pressures
Longstanding organizations are not immune to political pressure or historical baggage—evaluators note episodes such as governmental pressure on Reuters during wartime as part of its institutional history—yet current assessments emphasize editorial standards and sourcing practices that mitigate systemic bias in day‑to‑day reporting [1].
5. Practical meaning of “bias” for readers
For consumers, the practical takeaway is that both AP and Reuters are regularly used as foundational sources because of broad sourcing, editorial processes, and fact‑checking resources—AP explicitly runs an AP Fact Check desk to combat misinformation [9]—but readers should expect occasional framing choices or word selection that critics call “leaning” and should verify contested topics across sources given differing methodologies [2] [9].
6. Hidden agendas and the auditors themselves
Evaluations come from organizations that have their own missions and audiences: Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as a comprehensive resource [8], AllSides emphasizes blind surveys to reduce preconceived brand effects [3], and Ad Fontes publishes a bias/reliability chart with explicit scoring rules [10] [4]; those institutional aims influence how strict or forgiving each auditor is when labeling AP or Reuters.
7. Direct answer
Yes—both organizations have been characterized as having minor bias by some evaluators: AP is sometimes rated slightly left‑of‑center while Reuters is typically rated centrist or “least biased” depending on the reviewer—but the consensus across multiple independent audits is that both outlets are high in factual reliability and are minimally biased relative to many other outlets, with differences driven largely by measurement choices rather than clear partisan intent [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].