Just reading these posts you can sense a lot of anti-Obama conservatism. Susbtle and sacastic that it may be, the inauguration is clearly not important to many folks in Janesville area. I was there, and it is more of an island surrounded by reality than people are aware.

It would really take some onions to admit the Bush presidency was the worst in our lifetimes and acknowledge what a disaster he was on nearly every front possible.

I think Obama is fantastic for this country on so many levels it is clearly obvious to me. The man needs our support and has already proven he will be transparent and admit if he makes a mistake. There may be more mistakes, but I will take the honesty, the good will, and support our new president.

What a colossal mess he has inherited!!!

I think the majority of people watched it on television anyway. I know I picked up as many newspapers as I could, both on the day of and the day after, just to have physical documentation to pass down. Don't sweat it, I think the Gazette did a fine job.
+
Rexkramer: I for one am thrilled that you somehow found the courage to go on.

Somehow I've found the courage to go on without one more media outlet having slobbered all over themselves over the coronation of the new messiah.

"Gazette’s timing is off for Inauguration"

"I don’t suppose this would be an indication of any sort of media bias though, would it?"

No. Considering the million or so people that braved the cold, and record peak internet traffic, the media simply goes where the story is.

momof5:

We held the press so we could get a photo of the president with his hand on the bible while taking the oath. The photo took up most of our front page. I know that the historical significance of this event influenced some decisions. I'm not sure if we would have done the same for John McCain, given that he'd have been the 44th man of purely European descent to hold the office in the past 220 years.

What I do know is that if John McCain had been black, or if Barack Obama had been a Republican, we'd have done the exact same thing we did on Tuesday. The historical significance has nothing to do with left- or right-wing politics.

The Beloit Daily News has a smaller circulation and distribution area, and its press time is later. That's how things work.

The political party of the incoming president should not make any difference to a news organization and did not in our case. I can't imagine it would anywhere. What did make a difference was the historic significance of the United States inaugurating its first African American president. Say what you will, based on your own beliefs, but the country as a whole and even the world recognized this event as significantly more historic and momentous than the inauguration of another white man.

Scott Angus

Maybe it had something to do with that fact that many people believe Bush didn't exactly win the last election, so many didn't care to watch the inauguration. I also agree with momof5. If McCain had won, there wouldn't be nearly the national interest in it. People just need to realize, "love-fest" or not and disregarding any "media bias", Obama's inauguration was incredibly historic.

According to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/i...), Obama’s Inauguration got 35 times the coverage (newspaper, TV, radio) of the last Inauguration. So I don’t think it was a big deal that you missed out on joining the great Obama love-fest. I don’t suppose this would be an indication of any sort of media bias though, would it?

Momof5: I don't think there would be as much public interest in a McCain inauguration.

momof5,
As some newspapers have subscribers of particular political leanings or demographics, it is possible (and logical) that a greater percentage of subscribers to the paper abergstrom works for desired holding the presses than the percentage of Gazette subscribers/readers that desired it.
Likewise, there are probably papers that would be more likely to hold the presses for a Republican President due to their readers/subscribers.
Such logic may not necessarily apply here but it is certainly possible.

Mr. Angus: Did you hold the presses for ANY other Presidential Inauguration? If not, I applaud you for staying TRUE to yourselves!

abergstrom: Ask your editor in Rochester if (they) would have held the presses if we were inaugurating John McCain as this country's 44th President.

I anxiously await these answers.....

The Beloit Daily News managed to make the inauguration it's top story on Tuesday, and it is published in the afternoon. I think it was worth holding the presses 20 minutes.

I'm actually a little surprised you guys didn't hold the press. We pushed press time from 10:45 a.m. to 11:45 here in Rochester, mainly to get a photo of the oath-taking and text of the speech.

I could have sworn the Gazette had a way-back machine in that new building of theirs.

As of the last few months, we have not gotten our paper regularly anyway. Weather or whatever, it's not like our other carriers have done and have always done an excellent job of delivery.

I watched it live on ABC's website. A regular newspaper is too slow in today's hyper linked information network. The Internets has big tubes, you know.

I wouldn't sweat it Scott, there is plenty of coverage out there today. Having the paper come out the day after might bring a better perspective to the events.

I'm just glad that the Gazette is here to help us celebrate the inauguration. The layoff of staff at the Madison newspapers today is disappointing news. Ben Franklin has probably rolled over in his grave several times in the last year or so.

I'm sure the Gazette isn't the only newspaper with a deadline for printing the day's news. The keepsake paper is always the day after an event like this anyways...don't sweat it!

Maybe we should have called Washington and seen if they could move the schedule up a little. ;-)