Oil Contamination in Ecuador

The two videos shown in class regarding the oil contamination in the Amazon Forest in Ecuador, had completely different takes on the story. The CBS 60 minutes video portrayed Ecuador as the victim in the case. The interviews were biased, they each showed different negative facts on how Texaco/Chevron was at fault for all of the contamination within the rain forest. In the interviews with CBS, they showed the parts of the interview that Texaco/Chevron seemed like they could have done more to fix the problem earlier than they did. Of the 900+ oil pits that they created when filling oil barrels, Texaco/Chevron only cleaned up about a sixth of the amount that they were "responsible" for, which was about 150 pits. From a viewers point it was hard not to take the side of the people of Ecuador because of the spin that CBS put on their style of interviewing and the way they broadcast it. Even the footage that they filmed for the clips was at a biased point of view.
The second video was from YouTube, which I felt also had a biased point of view. This video was more geared towards defending Texaco/Chevrons side of the case. This video's interviews, although maybe with the same people as CBS, showed parts of the interview that made the oil company look better in the eyes of the viewer. Both of these videos are different takes on one story and it makes the viewer wonder, which is more credible? In my opinion, the CBS video is more credible because 60 minutes has done interviews on many high profile cases and the fact that this story was covered and aired on 60 minutes means that it is obviously important, and CBS has to cover all the facts of the case. Even though there were facts in each of the videos, there was clearly different objectivity on each of the creators sides.