News Organizations

aljazeera.com

I have usually considered Aljazeera to be one of the most unbiased news organizations. However, I say most, not completely, because while they do not appear to have taken a general right/left stance on politics, they do clearly disapprove of the manner in which President Bush handled things in the Middle East. They also use slanted words and phrases at times like, "Historical Mystery of Bush's Presidency," and "Will Bush’s legacy turn out to be an everlasting adoption of a phrase that endlessly justifies an ongoing drain on our nation’s purse strings for weapons, occupations, and invasions?" Aside from these, the website seems to offer a fairly well balanced account on the happenings of the region. There is substantial coverage of the U.S. election, but to the degree of what that means for that region, and it is not top news. As, I have noted in the past, I think that this news organization bears similarity to the coverage that Murrow gave during WWII, but in a different way. It tends to cover both sides equally (equal air time), but perhaps not in the same light. I choose this organization first for well-rounded coverage of the war rather than its politics.

Foxnews.com

This site's front page shows a picture of Obama celebrating, with the headline "Dancing the Night Away." The other story headlines regarding the election and other news read straight to the point, without bias. However the juxtaposition of face time those have in relation to the photo and its caption, "President and first lady twirl their way through 10 all-star inaugural balls into the early morning," slant the overall appearance of the site. It is clearly conservative. The other headlines give equal coverage to the election, and other news regarding the country. There is also plenty of text in relation to photos and ads. Murrow would not approve of this layout in combination with word choice, because it paints a biased picture of the President's actions. Coverage of the inauguration speech and actions the President intends to take should have dominant attention. Details about the dancing and celebrating should not be front and center.

New York Times
This site is very easy to navigate. The tabs take you to news, arts, opinion etc. From there, you can navigate to more detail. I.e. news-world-Asia pacific etc. There are a lot of ads, which can be a bit distracting, but there is also a lot of print. The front page is a collage of election coverage. The articles seemed to be in a positive light. Navigation tabs are stacked on a sidebar. There really aren't many stories not concerning the election, featured on the homepage. If you click on "Today's Paper," the front page is the same, for coverage. The world news page gives a more well-rounded variety of coverage. The U.S. News page also offers more of a variety of national coverage than the front or home pages. Murrow would approve that the articles of the home and front pages are relevant and address differing angles on the new Presidency. He may criticize the lack of variety in news stories on display. I enjoy the New York Times as a well-written, well-investigated news option. The arrangement of stories may be a bit biased, but the stories themselves tend to be critical and well-rounded.