I noticed a big difference between the multimedia options on the BBC website and on the Reuters website. The BBC in general is much more visually oriented than the Reuters. Both have a slideshow of photos on the main page but Reuters, unlike the BBC, does not have a very user friendly site.
Whereas the BBC has a side bar that categorizes the news based on geographic continent, Reuters has simply a list of headlines, unorganized at first glance. The BBC has its top news stories accompanied with a photo and a lead. Also, many of the hard-news articles have video. The news stories on the home page that catch your eye are all hard-news. The BBC does a good job of compartmentalizing their website. The features and analysis pieces are under their own category, this way the audience can "pick and choose" exactly what they want to read and when.
The Reuters site is similarly organized, but it is much less detailed. Though there are pictures and multimedia, it is not as well organized as the BBC site. There is no distinction between hard-news stories and features. As I mentioned there is only a list of headlines. Only a handful of the headlines have photos, and few of the articles have video. Depending on which headline you click, some articles are written as news stories, some are written as features. It makes the search for news stories much more tedious.
Just by observing the lay-out of the different websites, I noticed the importance of news sources to have an appealing website. The more difficult it is to mentally organize and separate the news, the less likely I am to stay on the site.