Once a reporter makes their own opinion on the subject being covered by them known, the article or story loses its news value and cannot be seen as credible any longer. I believe the reporter needs to remain unbiased and not let the story sway in one direction or another as it is their job to inform viewers or readers about an issue, not to help form their opinions. By producing biased journalism, the reporter risks losing followers who will not take their information as fact and the reporter will not be adhering to the "Murrow Standards" of journalism.
After watching both the 60 Minutes video and the You Tube video created by Chevron, it is hard to decipher who is telling honest and accurate information. While the 60 Minutes video pushed the viewer to side with the Ecuadorian people affected by the pollution left by Texaco, the video created by Chevron of course wants the viewer to believe and support only their side. Neither reporting was unbiased, however the 60 Minutes video was slightly more credible when compared to Chevron's video only because it appeared to be coming from a more journalistic standpoint. Despite this, the reporter was definitely leading those he interviewed to speak negatively about the case. Also, the only person interviewed who actually worked for Chevron was portrayed in a very negative light. Nonetheless, no matter how obvious the reporter was about his stance on the issue, a little bit of Chevron's side was shown.
On the other hand, the You Tube video created by Chevron in defense against the allegations made by the Ecuadorian people trying to sue Chevron is completely biased, which takes away any kind of news value. It is obvious that the video was created only for Chevron's benefit to try and disprove the 60 Minutes video. This video interviewed only people who worked for Chevron, which makes anything thing said hard to believe and makes the viewer consider why the plaintiff's side is never heard from their own mouths. Both stories give not only strongly differing opinions, but also differing facts.
After watching both videos I have no idea what is the truth and what is fabricated or misleading in an attempt to gain the viewer's support. When journalism takes place like this it is not newsworthy, all it does is confuse the viewer and makes them go to other sources to acquire the unbiased information they were originally looking for.
