The Free Press did a good job of using multimedia for telling the story of Obama's inauguration. An example is the above piece, which provides a video along with a written story by Todd Spangler. The video does exactly what it should do; give the viewer the story of the President's swearing. The text piece tells the same story, but tells it in a completely way, which makes it feel like a second piece. The video complements the text story, which is what a video should do.
Another piece that I found interesting was the top 10 moments from the inauguration. It was a more pop culture piece that would appeal to those that do not take an interest in politics, while still giving them the necessary information. I think this is a great awareness as to the majority of America receives its information, and what Americans place an importance on. While I'm not particularly proud of it, it was also the first piece that I clicked on.
There was one aspect of the Free Press's coverage that I didn't particularly care for. As I was reading pieces, I noticed that many of the authors had USA Today as their company, not the Free Press. After some googling, I found out the owner of USA Today owns the Free Press and thus could have cross-platform reporters or stories. I don't think the Free Press should use USA Today's stories because it doesn't promote their own stories or reporters. I would have liked to have read more pieces by reporters working for the Free Press.
Overall, I found the Detroit Free Press's coverage of the presidential inauguration to be good. The reporting was good, stories were extensive and had many angles and pieces varied so people with different interests could read different stories and still get the necessary information. Multimedia was utilized, but I would have preferred more original reporting from the Free Press.