Whenever there's big news (by which I mean news with far reaching, global implications) it's always interesting (*to me anyway) to survey the coverage offered by various news outlets. Since the stuff I post here tends to focus on American media outlets, I did a quick scan of the main pages of the places I think most Americans go for this type of news. (i.e. - major news outlets, not blogs)

Checking out how each outlets covers a story gives important incite as to who the honchos at the outlet think their readers are. While much of today's reporting on the death of bin Laden was pretty similar. There were some unique pieces of coverage that I found interesting.









CNN.com's coverage was pretty standard-the main story, the opportunity to watch Obama's speech, as well as check out reactions. The one unique thing I found at cnn.com on the main page - "Obama's Smile Revealed Nothing". 47 seconds long. Check it out. So, cnn.com pretty much meets a baseline of coverage - simple, standard stories, nothing too crazy. Moving on...

MSNBC's coverage is a little more Obama friendly than that of CNN. He gets a fairly big header on the left as well as the first video (which includes a thumbnail not simply a "WATCH"). MSNBC provides a thumbnail and link to a video of the compound burning, which may be just what one who is in the throws of a ratched up "U.S.A., U.S.A." type adreneline rush wants. Again, reasonably standard coverage...onto Fox, which had some standard coverage, annnnnd...so less than standard coverage.

In the first seconds of a glance at the Fox News main page you may think the coverage is pretty standard, until you realize that an article/photo of George W. Bush calling bin Laden's death a "Victory for America" is given more prominent placement than a link (no photo or thumbnail) to the video of President Obama's speech. The guy who had just shy of eight years to take out bin Laden is somehow more newsworthy over at Fox than the guy who got the job done in less than three years. You'll also notice, that teeny link to the Obama video is the ONE mention of Obama on the page, save for the mention of his name in the first sentence of the main article, which I should note was taken down not too long after I took this screen grab. So, at present, that link is the one mention of Obama. I thought that was weird enough...then I scrolled down and saw this:



Just look at the bottom left. Seriously. Look at it. You probably spent time awake last night wondering "But what does Katy Perry (and the rest of "Hollywood") think of all this????" No worries, Fox News has you covered. They didn't see fit to give much time to the current Pres., but they sure scooped the Katy Perry coverage. (Remember that thing I was saying about how the way an outlet covers something is telling of how they perceive their readers...?)

I checked out the New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR as well. All of their coverage was standard with some unique points. (If you'd like screengrabs, send me an email.) NPR, which seems to always have quirky sidebars covered, offers this story of a man who inadvertently liveblogged bin Laden's death. The Times' main page has a LOVELY photo album with some pretty great shots. I encourage flipping through it. The Post's coverage was pretty unremarkable.

(*NOTE*-Screenshots were all taken roughly around 9:30/9:45 am on the east coast.)

UPDATE - Just for fun I thought I'd check out what good ol' Rush had to say. For what it's worth, I don't think he's a credible news source, or news source at all for that matter, I think he's a pile of venimous filth spewing shit, but sometimes it's fun to see how piles of venimous filth spewing shit frame their messages...



OR...don't frame as the case may be. Taken at 11:31 am (EST). Not a mention of the the largest news story of the decade. Na, no. As far as Rush is concerned, we should be talking about Donald Trump...or perhaps ol' Rush is just passed out somewhere after a painkiller bender.

