Life on Mars?

It's been a fantasy going back decades--life on Mars. But as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal published, Curiosity, the US Mars rover, has yet to turn up any evidence of lifeforms on the distant planet.

Both articles have a variety of sources--scientists that were both involved with the original findings of methane in 2003, scientists directly involved with the Curiosity, and scientists observing the research. Very little seems to distinguish one article from the other, though WSJ does clarify that several countries still plan on launching their own probes to Mars whereas NYT focuses mostly on the US efforts. I found it interesting, that everyone interviewed for both articles, especially those still invested in continuing the research, had something invested in the cause. NYT interviewed the president of Mars Society, a nonprofit organization, who was convinced that underground aquifers could hold the key to undiscovered life. 

I had to wonder if this falls under 'fair' coverage. Since this was merely a statement that life hasn't yet been found, instead of "Doubts of life on Mars cause backers to question financial wisdom in continuing the search," I think this is a good example of how there really aren't 'two sides' (or more) to cover.

I am also beginning to discover a correlation in headlines from NYT and WSJ. NYT's article "Mars Rover Comes Up Empty in Search" vs WSJ's "Life on Mars? New Doubts Emerge" is another example of NYT using language geared more toward grabbing the reader's attention. Coming up empty is a definite statement, whereas 'New Doubts Emerge' is vague--what doubts, does this mean that scientists are sure there isn't life on Mars? Or are they just having unfortunate first results? How serious is it? Like the Pope articles, these headlines strike totally different tones. Tone is important in a piece, setting the reader up for certain expectations. While these two newspapers are very serious which huge audiences, headlines set side-by-side almost give a feel for a strong fist against a casual shrug (NYT vs WSJ). I find myself preferring the coverage at WSJ; the language they use is more relaxed, and seem to cover more aspects of a topic.This is yet another bias I must be aware of while reading.