Iran President @ Columbia: who did it best?

Washington Post approach of president Mahmoud's visit to Columbia was very objective . Their entire article simply quoted the entire event word by word, from the infamous introduction given by the university's president Lee Bollinger to president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad's controversial speech.

The Washington post did not have any opinion's or third party quotes it simply stated the facts as it took place. This in my opinion is good journalism, the kind that one can refer to when establishing an individual and independent outtake on such an event.

Newsweek's approach more subjective for their title begins with "The Iranian president drew cheers and boos from his Ivy League audience. But the university's Lee Bollinger may have been the real scene-stealer during the controversial visit." They put much emphasis on the president's introductory speech and focused on the reasoning behind the president's out lash to Ahmadenijad.

NewsWeek had a point of view and what seemed to be a bias one. They geared towards keeping the reader entertained by the controversial aspect of the event. They highlighted the comments made by Ahmadenijad, like the holocaust being a theory and the no homosexuals in his country comment. However they did say that the audience reacted with mixed responses booing and cheering at times which indicated some impartial pontential.

Overall Newsweek did do a good job at covering the events , quoting comments made from spectators at the event. However the Washington Post whom took a complete impartial approach, chose to stick to the actual speech, which in my opinion is good unequivocated journalism.