How Biased Language in News Reporting Serves Propagandists

From 'migrant' to 'gender-affirming care'

Today, major news outlets often promote language that prioritizes advocacy over neutrality. These editorial decisions have an impact far beyond the audience consuming news produced by any one newsroom. They shape public perception, advance ideological agendas and, at times, mislead on a grand scale— whether intentional or not.

Advocates and propagandists have learned that to have an outsized impact on national debates and controversies, all they need to do is co-opt key or create news influencers that establish standards and policies. This includes Associated Press (AP), online dictionaries, fact-checking groups, journalism schools like Columbia, and journalism resources like Poynter Institute.

AP’s Stylebook is widely adopted in journalism and used to standardize terminology for news organizations worldwide. Initially designed to ensure clarity and consistency in reporting, the AP Stylebook has become a cornerstone for journalistic language, with most newsrooms adhering to its guidelines to standardize things like grammar, abbreviations, and titles.

However, in recent years, critics argue that the AP has veered from its tradition of neutrality, incorporating advocacy-driven terms in debates over race, gender, and politics—terms sometimes deemed inaccurate or polarizing. Detractors contend that by prioritizing ideological language over objective precision, the AP has allowed itself to be co-opted by propagandists, undermining its role as a neutral arbiter and influencing public discourse through the widespread adoption of its “style” by other media outlets.

Read on for examples and details.

"Gender-Affirming Care"

The term "gender-affirming care" has become standard in mainstream reporting to describe medical interventions like hormone therapy or surgeries for people who wish to be the opposite sex.

The AP Stylebook endorses this phrase, framing such treatments as supportive and positive.

One issue with this tact is: the traditional purpose of “the news” isn’t to be “supportive and positive,” it’s to relay facts and various positions in debates and controversies. The AP position turns journalists into advocates on one side in a debate.

An even bigger problem with AP’s stance, from a journalistic perspective, is that the term “gender-affirming care” is inaccuarate.

Biologically, the interventions referred to often aim to alter or suppress an individual’s natural physiology, rejecting their gender… not “affirming” it. Chromosomes, reproductive systems, and secondary sex characteristics remain unchanged at the cellular level.

A 2023 study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism noted that hormone therapy does not alter an individual’s biological sex markers, such as DNA. Calling this therapy "affirming" implies a subjective validation of identity over objective reality.

What’s thought of as “gender-affirming care” could be more accurately described as “gender-denying measures” or attempts to impersonate the opposite gender.

"Assigned at Birth"

The phrase "sex assigned at birth" has surfaced in many newsrooms, including in AP’s guidelines. But this is another inaccurate propaganda term.

“Sex assigned at birth” suggests that a doctor’s observation of a newborn’s sex is arbitrary or subjective, akin to choosing a name.

Yet, for thousands of years, recording a baby’s sex has been nothing more than a straightforward observation based on visible anatomy, with rare exceptions for intersex conditions (affecting less than 0.1% of the population, per a 2020 Nature study).

Generally, there is no ambiguity or subjectivity involved in observing a baby’s sex a birth, and no “assignment” or choice.

By framing sex as "assigned," media outlets mischaracterize the process and serve as tools of activists who wish to create the perception that a person’s sex is subjective and fluid or a matter of personal choice.

“Biological Sex”

Along the same lines, use of the phrase “biological sex” implies there is another kind of sex other than “biological.”

In fact, scientists universally agree that sex, typically determined or marked by XX or XY chromosomes, cannot be altered.

When a person changes appearance to try to resemble or impersonate the opposite sex, it doesn’t change that person’s sex.

"Died by Suicide"

Advocates are working hard to replace the common term "committed suicide" with "died by suicide.” The AP Stylebook now recommends “committed suicide” be avoided, with the idea that it stigmatizes mental health struggles, and that "committed" implies criminality.

However, "died by suicide" is a poor replacement. The term suggests a passive event, as if suicide happens to someone rather than being an intentional act by the person himself.

A 2024 Associated Press (AP) report used the phrase "died by suicide" referring to the death of Alec Musser, an actor and model known for his roles in All My Children and the 2010 Adam Sandler comedy Grown Ups.

Musser shot himself on January 12, 2024, at the age of 50, according to the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office. Instead of reporting that he’d committed suicide, AP and others reported that he "died by suicide.” Critics argued it softened the deliberate nature and profound tragedy of the act, potentially diminishing the stark reality of the loss.

Data from the CDC shows suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in the U.S., with over 49,000 cases in 2022, often involving complex factors like mental illness or substance abuse.

"Migrant"

One of the most widely-used, inaccurate terms in media today is “migrants,” replacing the term “illegal immigrants.” The AP Stylebook advises against using "illegal immigrant" in most cases, citing its potential to dehumanize.

A 2023 AP story referred to thousands crossing the U.S. southern border as "migrants," despite most of them crossing illegally, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and no individual confirmation on AP’s part as to which were migrants as opposed to human traffickers, drug dealers, and other non-migrants.

This shift in language sacrifices accuracy and serves to unfairly group legal migrants in with those who have come into the US illegally. News divisions that normally would take great care not to inaccurately stereotype a group of people do just that when they slander legal migrants by equating them to illegal aliens.

Historically, “migrant” defined people who move around or migrate, often for work, and often legally. Think of seasonal farm workers or refugees with visas. But an illegal immigrant or alien enters or stays in a country without legal authorization.

Years ago at CBS News, advocates lobbied to change our use of the term “illegal immigrant” to “undocumented worker.” An executive at the network sent a memo to the news division announcing we should change our terminology to say “undocumented workers” when we would otherwise have said “illegal immigrant.”

This change was met with an outcry among CBS journalists. We rightly argued that “undocumented worker” was a propaganda phrase of advocacy, and that it was simply inaccurate as a catch all: many illegal immigrants are not working at all. Some are drug traffickers, cartel thugs, gang members, children, or non-working parents and spouses.

After the backlash, CBS News didn’t institute the terminology change, after all.

Conflating “illegal immigrant” and “migrant” muddies the legal distinction and takes a position of advocacy in a contentious debate.

“Reproductive Rights”

The term “reproductive rights” has largely replaced “abortion” or “abortion rights” in news coverage.

However, accuracy has taken a hit in this case, too. The debate over abortion is not in any way over a woman’s core “right” to “reproduce.” Nobody is challenging that.

A 2024 New York Times article used "reproductive rights" 12 times without mentioning "abortion," despite the fact that the article was about abortion access.

Likewise, “reproductive health care” is another misnomer for abortion or abortion rights. With an abortion, a woman is not getting “health care” to help her “reproduce”; quite the opposite.

“Climate Crisis”

Many news outlets report, without attribution, that there is a “climate crisis,” though there’s great scientific debate over that point.

There are also subdebates over points such as: If there is global warming, how much if any is man-controlled? And what, if anything, can be done about it?

By adopting the controversial, unequivocal position that there is a crisis, journalists have allowed themselves to serve as tools for one side in a heated, ongoing debate.

“Anti-Vaccine”

“Anti-vaccine” or “anti-vaxx” is a term introduced by pharmaceutical interests in the early 2000s when vaccines began facing increased scrutiny in the face of the autism epidemic that was becoming evident.

Many news organizations have adopted the term, and use it to unfairly and inaccurately describe anyone who asks reasonable questions about vaccine safety issues. This includes some people who explicitly say they are not anti-vaccine.

“Preferred Pronouns”

One of the most confusing and unjournalistic thing some news organizations do when it comes to adopting language of propagandists is use “preferred pronouns.”

The use of "preferred pronouns" like "they/them" when referring to one person, even in cases where the person is struggling with mental health issues, has become a journalistic norm. The AP advises respecting individuals’ pronoun preferences, even when they deviate from grammatical accuracy or biological reality; and even when the individual is mentally ill.

For instance, referring to a public figure like Elliot Page, media outlets consistently use "he/they" pronouns, despite Page being female. This practice can obscure clarity, especially when covering gender dysphoria, which the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) classifies as a psychological condition.

Using "they" for one person also creates grammatical confusion and can make news stories less precise. A top goal for news reporting should be clarity.

Below are several examples of news stories where use of “preferred pronouns” or referring to people by their opposite, but preferred, gender illustrates how confusing things can become, even when well-intentioned.

In 2021, celebrity Demi Lovato, a woman, stated she is non-binary and wanted to be referred to as “they/them." In 2023, she announced she was also comfortable with "she/her."

A typical article on Lovato’s shift might state: "They shared that they’re also comfortable using she/her pronouns now, after they felt explaining their identity was exhausting." The first "they" refers to Lovato, but the repeated use of "they" could confuse readers into thinking it refers to a group, especially when the article later mentions Lovato’s fans or team: "They were thrilled to hear about her new music." Here, "they" shifts to the fans.

In 2019, Singer Sam Smith said that he is non-binary and requested people refer to him using “they/them." Articles often quoted him directly, such as: "They felt just as much a woman as I am man." The story might then describe public reactions: "They were met with both support and backlash." The first "they" is Smith, but the second could be misread as Smith and their team or fans. For example: "They thanked their fans, who they said inspired them," blurs whether "they" refers to Smith alone or includes others.

A 2019 NPR article on non-binary employees and pronoun policies (https://www.npr.org/2019/06/26/735138214/they-them-theirs-how-gender-neutral-pronouns-are-changing-the-workplace) profiled Mich Dopiro, who said he was a non-binary employee using "they/them" pronouns. The article states: "They told their colleagues about their pronouns, and they were supportive, but they still found it confusing." The first "they" refrers to Dopiro, the second "they" is the colleagues, and the third "they" reverts to Dopiro.

Reporting on YouTube makeup artist Jeffree Star is likewise confusing. Star, a man, has rejected “they/them” pronouns. But some stories still refer to him that way and lead to confusing or nonsensical sentences. One report stated, “Jeffree Star has been in trouble for things he said and did that upset many people. He made comments and acted in ways that some found hurtful or offensive. Due to which many people stopped supporting them which led to them being ‘cancelled.”

The Impact of Language on Trust

It’s perfectly fine for activists to use terms of advocacy. It’s fine for news organizations to quote them. But what isn’t journalistic is for newsrooms to adopt those terms of advocacy themselves, without attribution.

News organizations should give great consideration to adopting new terms or changing old ones so that the news groups don’t inadvertently become tools of propagandists.

The AP and other outlets defend the politically correct but inaccurate terms as sensitive and inclusive, reflecting evolving societal norms. But it’s having an impact on public trust.

A 2025 Gallup poll shows only 16% of Americans trust news media "a great deal.” That’s down from 36% in 1980. Adopting advocacy-driven language plays a role in alienating readers and viewers in search of objectivity.

When media outlets prioritize terms that align with specific ideologies—whether on gender, immigration, or mental health—they risk undermining their role as impartial arbiters of fact. Neutral language, grounded in observable reality and clear definitions, could rebuild trust by letting readers draw their own conclusions.

By prioritizing clarity and precision, newsrooms could better serve the public’s desire for facts without the bias.

Read Sharyl’s five star bestseller: “Follow the $cience: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails.”