The New York Times versus The Washington Post

So about a month ago, I started reading news other than my local paper. From the daily print to the real time online posts. Conclusions from an amateur are sometimes common sense to the regular reader, or they sometimes turn out completely wrong. But hey, we're learning. So here's my judgement: 

Read the Washington Post for the Logos. Read the New York Times for the Pathos. Read the Washington Post if you want to be spoon fed facts and conclusions. Read the New York Times if you want to dig in and join the debate. Read both if you want to truly impress your date over a Frappucino (an appropriate summer drink, I feel). 

Here's my evidence (one pick out of many).  Both The New York Times and The Washington Post wrote articles concerning the two-day summit meeting in Mexico on July 10, 2009. Both articles reported that the meeting was taking place and listed the topics to be explored. 

The Washington Post described the current action and the history of the topic in depth, whereas the New York Times explored more of the conflicting viewpoints sparked by the topic and possibilities for resolution.

1. The Washington Post defines the "North American Leaders Summit", gives an account of its history, and reports on all congressional action concerning Mexico in the past year, Mexican president Calderon's recent action as president, and statistics regarding drug trafficking in Mexico.

The New York Times lets us know about the summit, but does not explore how it was organized (prompted), nor does this news source explore any background information on the North American Free Trade Agreements treaty, though it is  a significant part of the article. The New York Times does give some statistics related to funding.   

2. The New York Times explores points of view of Manuel Zelaya, former president of Honduras, Maria Guzman, Jim Jones, an Obama administration official (quoted 3 times throughout the article), and US business groups.  The New York Times speaks about what is "expected" (REUTERS), what the US would "like to see," and what Washington "is worried" about. 

The closest the Washington Post comes to speculating the outcome of the summit meeting is quoting an Obama administration official (only two times and in one paragraph).  

Washington Post defines its style as one that consistently informs people with accurate history and statistics (identifying patterns), whereas New York Times defines its style as one that consistently stresses the importance of understanding free speech and different perspectives. 

Both are valuable approaches when it comes to analyzing consistency, pursuing negotiation, and obtaining solutions. 

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/08/09/world/international-uk-mexico-obama 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/09/AR2009080901566.html