In the news today, especially on the internet, issues written that are written about are going to have a certain bias. One of the reasons is because anyone can have website if they have a computer and the proper software. Therefore instead of getting one opinion, or one outlook on stories, news, debates etc., you can get both sides of the story and therefore make your opinion. On the four outlets of these stories you will see how they treat stories differently, or in some cases don't even carry them.
The minute you load up the MSNBC website you can clearly see that they have money. There site is very well thought out they give you options for local news and have pictures and the news is updated hourly. Same with the CBS mainstream website. They have advertisements options and it's a colorful, flashy site, showing they spared no expense. In opposition when you got to motherjones.com and world net daily you can tell that it's a small corporation or even homegrown. Its very plain but straight to the point. It's not that it's a bad web page its not nearly as flashy or professional. It has its options laid out with other web links as opposed to huge advertisements. So already the general appearance of the site themselves show a great contrast.
When I load up the two mainstream sites the first thing I see is "Sydney 2000" then on their sidebars I see "News" stories. I see issues about the campaign; Oil prices and still we talk about Jean Bonnet Ramsey. When I load up Mother Jones I first see the title and the phrase "News for the skeptical citizen". Directly below the Top story now links to click on to, no Olympics to by-pass. There it is the top story, "The Kids Who Could Topple Milosevic" an article about the general strike occurring until Milosevic admits defeat in the election. There is also video with a Serbian citizen who "dared to say what' really happening." Now, you can also find this story on MSNBC and CBS