CBS and Chevron

After watching these two videos I feel both leaned toward opposite sides of this argument. The Chevron video interviewed six people, all of whom supported the Chevron cause. During this video the plaintiffs are only represented by descriptions from the Chevron consultants. Certain phrases that were used make it clear that this was not neutral journalism. Chevron received a "rude greeting"and there were "explosive public charges" against Chevron.
During the CBS video there was a bias toward the Ecuadorians and the plaintiffs. Instead of a neutral reporter the reporter in this video almost appeared as an investigative reporter for the plaintiffs. There was a lot of video and pictures that showed the people that live near the contaminated streams. Viewers see a lot about the background of these innocent bystanders who are affected when the huge American company moves in and disrupts their most basic needs. The journalist spends the majority of his time interviewing the lawyer for the plaintiffs and he provides a lot of the information in the video which is biased toward those he represents. Chevron was represented in this video by only one Chevron Consultant.
There are definitely two different viewpoints represented in these videos and I do not think either truly lives up to the "Murrow Standard" of traditional journalism because neither was truly without bias.