Chevron vs. Ecuador

If one were to watch the video released by Chevron speaking on it's current situation with Ecuador, I can see how it would be easy for a viewer to take Chevron's side. It seems like a real news story, the story is told by a real broadcaster, there are even interviews with insiders; how can it be that they are not following the Murrow standard? It is not until you view the story reported by "60 Minutes" that you realize how much information is lacking from the Chevron video. Although Chevron's video did give some facts similar to the"60 Minutes" report, it seems as though they left out major points; the other side of the story. The "60 Minutes" report clearly followed the Murrow standard in the following ways: it gave facts from both counts, there was no bias, and it seemed like traditional reporting; strictly giving the facts on a story that the public knows little about. The fact that Chevron hired their own reporter to give their side of the story, only after finding out that "60 Minutes" would be giving a report of their own, seems to give the lack of authenticity away. It also doesn't help that they now deny that it was a "report" to begin with, instead just a way to share their opinion with the public, even when their reporter clearly states that what he is doing is reporting. There are many ways that Chevron's bias is apparent after watching both of the videos. They put the blame on other companies, they only give their perspective, and they would not share certain inside information or interviews with CNN. Watching these two videos gives viewers an outside look on exactly how this phenomenon of media loosing integrity can really affect an outcome. It is not common for people to question the truth of a news story if it comes across as real news. It is important for reports to be un-bias, to state all of the facts, and to continue with the traditional Murrow standard.