Independent vs. Corporate Owned Media

The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/osama-bin-laden-pictures_n_857568.html

The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/us/politics/05binladen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=bin%20laden%20photos&st=cse

The two sources that I have chosen are "The Huffington Post" and "The New York Times". I feel that "The New York Times" might have biases in favour of the U.S., whereas "The Huffington Post" will be very unbiased seeing as it is a Canadian source and is independent. The article that I chose pertains to Barack Obama stating that he won't release the photos of a deceased Osama Bin Laden. In "The Huffington Post" article, it had many people within the U.S. government talk about the photos and how in order for the public to fully believe that Bin Laden is dead that they might need to release photos. It isn't necessarily a biased article, but it does only contain really one point of view and that would be from the American side. It doesn't favour anyone in particular so there isn't really any discrimination towards any other people. The article in "The New York Times" has the same point of views. All the views are from people in the U.S. government but there are a lot less of them. In this article you only get to hear form a few people and they all pretty much say the same thing. Also, unlike in "The Huffington Post" article, where it talks about the actual story throughout 90% of the article, in this one, it talks about the actual story for a couple paragraphs and then wanders off about the assault on Bin Laden. This article is a lot more U.S. biased and focuses more on the "triumphant victory". Overall, for both articles, for the most part the U.S. seems to benefit in one way or another and only U.S. voices are being included.