This is a case of CNN choosing a Reuters article when Fox chooses an AP article. The results often show different biases. Today each ran a story on a State Department human rights report which tells of government abuses by the Iraqi interim government. There were a lot of similarities in the articles. Here are some of the differences:
* Both articles open with some specific types of human rights abuses by the Iraqi government. CNN’s article notes “torture, arbitrary arrests, bribery and death.” Fox’s article, in its lead sentence notes only “torture, illegal detention by police and forced confessions.”
* Positive things were mentioned in the report about corrective action taken and the elections in January. Fox notes that in its third sentence. CNN places the positive news at end of its article but it does close with a lengthy positive quote.
* CNN notes twice that insurgent activity made it difficult for the State Department to get complete information and that it handicapped the Iraqi government’s performance. CNN notes a “stubborn and lethal insurgency” and “violent insurgency” and “serious insurgency.” Fox mentions the insurgents once: “…continuing struggle against insurgent violence had helped "create momentum for the improvement of human rights practices."”
As I have noted before, a reader of only one article would get a little different perspective than a reader of the other.