Washington Post and New York Times vary in inauguration coverage

The Washington Post's coverage, while detailed, seems skewed. The main article, which is more or less a chronicle of the day's events framed against reactions of feelings of some civilians, is all contained in one large piece. While effective, this lack of breaks or sectioning might alienate readers looking for specific information about the event, like if they wanted only to read about the Obama speech, or the Senator Edward Kennedy's collapse.

The collapse of Senator Edward Kennedy is the article displayed at the top of the page, and while it might not have been the editor's intent, this makes it seem like the Post feels this is more important than Obama's inauguration. It is interesting how this article makes a point to include Obama's actions during Kennedy's seizure, as if to show some of the current president's character.

More jarring is the article attached to the Kennedy seizure, a piece about what would be served at the Obama luncheon, who would be there, and where they would sit. Considering the main story is about a senator having a seizure, this piece is unimportant.

If I was the editor of this coverage, I would probably put the article about the inauguration at the top of the page.

NYtimes.com has their own coverage of the speech at the top of the site, instead of a breaking news ticker. This gives greater emphasis to the major event of the day, as opposed to our eye being drawn to the Kennedy collapse, or worries about banks going under.

Another thing I noted about NYTimes.com is that there seems to be a greater emphasis on photographs of the event. The Post does have its fair share of photos, but The New York Times has considerably more. However, the Post has live video feed, a feature that seems to be lacking at the Times website.