Police not guilty in NY shooting: Is a slanted version better? (Part 1)

Three New York police detectives were found not guilty this morning, under the murder trial of Sean Bell. Bell, 23, died after the three officers, Marc Cooper, Michael Oliver and Gescard Isnora shot a collective round of 5o bullets, hours before his wedding.
The officers who were facing charges of manslaughter were acquitted according to reports by CNN and USA Today. However CNN, also offers video options to discuss what happens next. With leaders such as Al Sharpton involved the issue in this case which falls on social injustice similar to the Jena 6 situation, will undoubtedly receive coverage in the future. It is good judgment to follow-up on whether community outcry will become the next edition to this ongoing saga. Some are even relating this situation to the Rodney King police beating in the '90s, which sparked brutal riots in the Los Angeles area. Some are saying this situation could cause rioting or more violence from the African American community in New York.
Although many people love to associate Al Sharpton with racial injustices, many sources recorded in stories on the trial conclude that it is an issue of race. Many New Yorkers believe Bell and his friends who had just concluded a bachelor party were singled out by the officers, despite the jury's findings. Two of the three of the accused officers were black.
However media such as Black America Web who usually specialize in providing news coverage to and from an African American perspective, doesn't show any signs of bias.
Not that anyone is expecting them too, but the website's article takes a very emotionally graphic spin on the trial. It is emotionally charged and meant to evoke feeling but not very slanted. As opposed to CNN who plays it much safer. What do you think? Is BAW's coverage biased, by emotionally outraged association? Does BAW have the right to pose stories in a slant, and still remain credible?
However check out this Fox News broadcast, concerning the communities reaction before the verdict a while back before the trail who is actually biased?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLti9Yx7d6M

Covering Cedarfest 2008

Following the riots of nearly 4,000 MSU students this weekend, East Lansing Police attempted to disperse Cedarfest 2008 crowds with canisters of tear gas and smoke bombs. After a facebook.com event planning to revive the rambunctious party tradition from the '80s in Cedar Village apartments adjacent to MSU's campus, students chanted, mooned and pelted police with probably every brand of beer can known to man.
To make matters worse the Cedarfest crowd received coverage from CNN, USA Today besides the obvious media stories in the Lansing State Journal and Detroit papers. Not that MSU students rioting is anything new, but making national news gives the world a certain impression. Reports were said to have 52 people arrested, 28 being MSU students and only 13 canisters of tear gas being used. This not being the bulk of the party crowd, the news media put a spin on this, like it was Woodstock bonfires and madness meets the Million Man March.
For Michigan State's independent voice The State News, the media outlet with the closest connection to the "riots," took angles showing the actuality of the matter. From the majority of students not-in-attendance to low numbers of arrests, the slant is less tilted to "another wild MSU party" but more so a celebration with a few bad apples. However the question is posed, should we expect national-scale mainstream media to understand "we're just students having fun." As I read and watched the videos of Cedarfest, my first instinct was to lower the "Education" section of my resume to the bottom of the page.
I certainly understand how media blows situations out of proportion, but you have to be dumb as a rock to not realize, this national coverage may affect perception of this university and the degrees that are spawned.
The funny thing about the headlines in all the stories besides those written by The State News, each contain the words "tear gas" or "riot." This proves undoubtedly that this isn't a case of "It doesn't matter what you're called, its what you answer to." "Riot" being a word which has limitations, national media played that noun out to get a story as "tear gas" adding the dramatic context. No where besides the The State News story tells that only 13 canisters were used.
Yeah, Cedarfest was awesome, but are there after effects? After the shattered windows of local businesses like Johnny's Lunch Restaurant and Urban Outfitters are repaired and garbage is collected from Cedar Village streets, couldn't this hinder the entire student body, not just party-goers? Michigan's economy is on the outs, but your degree and education is supposed to carry you through to many opportunities. Could negative media coverage of a bunch of belligerent drunks, pointless chants, and kids practicing their pitching-arm on East Lansing's finest, cost you that out-of-state job?

Is Clinton's win a comeback or not?

So Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire seemed to surprise everyone late last night, particularly the media pundits who had relied on polls showing Obama surging ahead in the past few days. The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz column today examines the issue. But is today's coverage of the election result any better? Many newspapers are heralding the victory as a comeback or an upset by Clinton. You can see some of today's New Hampshire front pages on the Poynter Institute website. Is comeback an accurate description, considering until a few days ago Clinton was assumed to be the front-runner in New Hampshire anyway? Bottomline: Are reporters and headline writers correct in trying to characterize every move in the run to the White House? Is there an inherent danger in relying too heavily on polls, which are really just a snapshot in time? Do we need to stick strictly to the facts and forget the characterizations or is part of our job to analyze?