Media's Presentation of Palin's Remarks

I found an interesting discrepancy in this morning's news. Much criticism has been aimed at Palin in the last few days, with many McCain supporters (and workers) leveling accusations at the running-mate that blame her for the loss of the presidential bid. If you haven't heard, these range from her apparently not understanding that Africa was a continent, which I have a very hard time believing, to being unprofessional with staff. She has finally begun speaking out against the accusations.

The Associated Press (AP) headline for this story is "Palin Denounces Anonymous Critics as 'Cowardly'" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26500628/). However, the New York Times (NYT) is entitled "Palin Calls Critics among McCain Aides 'Jerks'" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27602873/). What is interesting to me here is that both articles quote both lines. Yet, each author chose to emphasize one of the words in the headline.

The AP's choice of highlighting the word "cowardly" does not make Palin look like she is on the defensive. It is a much more neutral portrayal of the former VP candidate than the NYT's. Their choice to highlight her use of the word "jerk" does make Palin look bad. It is unstatesmanly to use this type of word and possibly highlights one of the reasons many felt Palin was unprepared for the job.

So when we look for bias in our research, it is important to notice not just which details are presented, because if we notice here, most of the details are the same in the two articles. Instead, we should also pay attention to which details are highlighted, in bigger type, towards the top of the article, included in captions, etc. That emphasis often will reveal an author's perspective.

Proposition Ads (95)

I think one of the most confusion-causing elements of the election are the ads describing the various propositions on the ballot. While they are supposed to be informative, they often instead just seem to contradict each other. I am sure that those who create these commercials sincerely believe in their opinions (either in favor of or against the specific proposition). But I wonder if they intentionally lie to sway others.
Prop 8's ads are a good example of misinformation. As a former k-12 teacher, I know what the California curriculum actually is. So when I see those in favor of Prop 8 claiming that gay marriage will have to be taught in school, I know that this is incorrect. However, there are other propositions that I do not have first-hand knowledge of. How do I decide in those cases who to believe?
The ads surrounding Prop 2 are one example. Prop 2 is intended to mandate that animals that raised for food be allowed a quality of life. Those in favor of the proposition favor allowing animals to live in safe conditions and be able to walk around. As a vegetarian, I firmly believe in animal rights. Prop 2 sounds like it should be a great thing.
But then I see the ads against Prop 2. They state that we will have to import eggs from Mexico and that cases of salmonella will increase. Food prices will soar and many California farmers will go out of business. I don't want our neighborhood farmers to go bankrupt and I do want our food to be safe.
Those in favor of Prop 2 answer these ads by claiming that salmonella cases actually increase due to the cramped conditions in which we currently keep our animals. The price increases are accurate, but they amount to approximately a penny per egg.
Who is correct here? Who is telling the truth? I know what I want: Quality living conditions for our animals, regardless of whether or not they are raised for food; safe food products; a stabilized economy for our farmers; food at a reasonable price.
Can someone just be honest and tell me how we make this happen?