Fox News/MSNBC/reuters

When comparing news websites, it is important to be aware of how fair and balanced the source will be.

After comparing three websites' homepages it became apparent that a more in depth approach would be required to determine the legitimacy of the sources. All three sites had headlines covering the same stories on the front page. One story stuck out in particular and was chosen to be compared between the three sites,Reuters , MSNBC, and Fox News

A recent switch of the Obama administration's decision to release photos of alleged human rights abuses by United States soldiers has created a a backlash from the American Civil Liberties Union. The controversy has given the media plenty to talk about.

Three of these sources present the same story under different lights. The stories differ in tone, headline content, and presentation of fact. These differences give readers a clue as to the political affiliation of each source. While two of the stories are politically fair, the third comes across as very conservative.

The first source was Reuters whose headline read "Obama Opposes detainee abuse photo release". This headline is unassuming and declares the story as objective fact. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Obama administration are given an equal chance to state their views. The article is free of subjective commentary and seems fair and equal to both sides of the issue. The visual of Obama giving his speech was appropriate for use with the article. The site's primary audience would be well educated people who understand the importance of objective reporting. I believe this story adheres to the "Murrow Standard" very closely.I would definitely pay attention to this site for reliable and balanced news.

The second article was from the Associated Press via MSNBC. The headline read "In reversal, Obama seeks to block abuse photos". This headline is straightforward and free of opinion. The article also allows both side to express their views. Both sides of the story were fairly represented. The article is very objective and tells the story thoroughly, without drifting into subjective editorialism. The visual used with the article is appropriate, showing Obama announcing his decision to reverse his stance on the issue. MSNBC has been known as a liberal news source and it shows through the commentary on television. However, the AP wrote this article, it is very reliable and meets the "Murrow Standard". The main audience for MSNBC woulr probably be people with liberal viewpoints. Whether stories are written by the AP or MSNBC contributors could vary greatly and could cause inconsistencies in their reporting styles. I would visit the site for news, but would be very cautious about what I read there.

The third article appeared on Fox News. From the beginning, the article was full of subjective writing. The headline read "Obama Faces Uphill Battle in Blocking Release of Detainee Photos". The story allows both sides to present their view of the issue, but are interspersed with subjective commentary. The presence of subjectivism makes the source seem uncredible. The visual shows Obama scratching his head. This makes the president look confused and disoriented as if he was unable to make up his mind on the situation. Fox News is known as a conservative source for news and it shows in this article. The article would not meet the "Murrow Standard" because of the overwhelming presence of subjective reporting. I would not look to this site as a credible source for news.