UPDATE: The FBI confirmed on July 26 that Trump was struck by "a bullet, whether whole or fragmented into smaller pieces, fired from the deceased subject’s rifle." That followed remarks from FBI Director Christopher Wray on July 24 when he said during Congressional testimony that the bureau is unsure whether Trump was struck by a bullet or "shrapnel."

After former President Trump was shot at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13, many news outlets were quite slow to initially report he was shot. Over a week later, one of the world’s largest news sources — the Associated Press — continues to be overly vague about whether he was actually hit by a bullet.

Recent reporting and social media posts from the Associated Press (Lean Left bias) describe the "assassination attempt" at length, but don’t say explicitly that Trump was shot or grazed by a bullet, instead leaving that detail up for interpretation.

AllSides has found that most other sources, regardless of bias rating, said Trump was "shot" or "grazed." But until the FBI's confirmation, the AP largely held off. Why?

The AP often extensively described other details about the moment, like the shots “fired in his direction,” the blood on his face, and the scramble to secure him. It even quotes several medical experts who appear to believe that Trump was grazed by a bullet.

But in many of its reports and all of its social media posts for the roughly two weeks between the shooting and the FBI's confirmation, the outlet didn't say in its own words that “Trump was shot” or “grazed by a bullet.” 

As of July 30, following the FBI confirmation, the AP was reporting that Trump "was struck in the ear by a bullet or a bullet fragment in the assassination attempt."

For example, a July 23 report says Trump "suffered an ear injury but was not seriously hurt" after the gunman fired "eight shots with an AR-style rifle into the crowd."

A July 21 AP article says the assassination attempt “wounded his ear”:

On July 18, the AP suggested it was strange that Trump’s team hadn’t released more details about his injury:

It appeared to lament this trend as more of the same from Trump:

On July 20, after Trump’s former physician Ronny Jackson issued a detailed update on his condition, the AP continued to refrain from reporting in its own words that Trump was struck by a bullet. It also highlighted in detail Jackson’s ties to Trump and previous controversies, framing him as an unreliable source of information:

The same report goes on to quote multiple medical professionals who appear to think Trump was grazed by a bullet.

Another July 20 AP report follows this trend of quoting Trump and his allies as saying he was shot, but never actually directly reporting that detail, leaving it up to you to decide whether Trump was actually shot, or if he and his camp are lying:

On July 17, four days after the shooting, here's how AP explained what happened:

AP did say Trump was “shot” in an article published July 16. But its wording has grown more vague in the days since, and it appears to be an outlier in this trend.

On July 22, NBC News (Lean Left) was prominently stating that the would-be assassin shot Trump.

A July 21 article from the Washington Post (Lean Left bias) clearly states that the shooter “took aim at a 78-year-old former president, grazing him.”

On July 16 and 17, CBS News (Lean Left bias) and CNN (Lean Left bias) reported that “Trump was shot.”

On July 18, BBC (Center) reported that the gunman “grazed” Trump with a bullet.

So why does this matter?

At a time when many Americans think the shooting was staged, media outlets should be as clear as possible about observable evidence. 

AllSides is using the following language (or something similar) to describe what happened:

"Trump’s right ear was grazed by a bullet."

"Trump was shot in the ear but escaped serious injury."

Quotes from medical professionals and the photo of the bullet passing Trump’s head led most media outlets to the rapid conclusion that he was shot. Immediately after the shooting, reports circulated that Trump had been hit by glass shards from a bullet striking a teleprompter, only to be walked back soon after. 

It’s possible (yet unlikely) that news outlets have some standard requiring some level of proof for a gunshot wound that hasn’t yet been attained in this case. But if this is the reason for the vague language, they should explain that. Until then, the AP and the thousands of smaller news outlets that use its content may fuel more confusion and uncertainty instead of answering their audience's questions.

Henry A. Brechter is the Editor-in-chief of AllSides. He has a Center bias.

Reviewed and edited by Joseph Ratliff, News Editor and Content Designer (Lean Left bias), and Julie Mastrine, Director of Marketing and Bias Ratings (Lean Right).

Updated July 31 with FBI confirmation.