By Lynn Walsh, RTDNA Blogger

Two big stories over the last week or so have have proven to be very popular on the web and have kept news coverage extended beyond normal air times. I am referring, of course, to the Royal Wedding and the death of Osama bin Laden.

What's interesting to me is that the two are completely different genres of news: one can be considered a "fluffy" entertainment piece and the other a hard-news, stop-the-presses story.

Even though the two seem drastically different, they both have at least three things in common:

1. Both stories are eliciting strong reactions from most viewers
2. Both stories have created huge frenzies online, especially on social media sites
3. Both stories led newscasts on and after the days the news occurred

The two stories have got me thinking about the resources news organizations put behind stories, especially those that are more entertainment-based.

The Royal Wedding was an event that people cared about and will continue to follow; there is no doubt about that. But was there a need for news organizations to send every top-anchor it has on staff to London? Was it necessary to devote so many resources to that story?

I do not think I am the expert to answer those questions. But it did get me thinking about a few things in news coverage.

1. Is it OK to use joint camera streams/live camera shots at events? Could organizations have come together and provided more joint coverage? Is that a better use of resources?

2.  Is it OK to put news resources behind a "fluff" story like the Royal Wedding when there are other huge, hard-news stories happening daily elsewhere around the world?

3. Could the wedding have been covered differently by news organizations? Where was the citizen journalism?

Before I offer my opinion to these questions I would like to say that although I was not up bright and early watching the wedding coverage LIVE I did record the coverage from multiple news stations and watch it in it's entirety later that evening. So, I too was enthralled in the magic and happiness of the moment. I also did enjoy the coverage so this is not a criticism of whether or not the coverage was good, but more questions about how news organization use their resources.

1. Thousands of journalists, some of the worlds best reporters and anchors and morning shows across the country went live from London for the event. They didn't just go live for one day but many went live for several days. I am not sure the cost each news organization incurred for this, but I am sure it was more than some journalists get paid in a year. My point: could news organizations have come together and provided the same coverage by sharing resources, and in the end spending less money? I think more resources could have been shared. Normally, it is not my opinion that camera feeds and video should be shared by news stations unless it is a press conference but in this case I think stations could have. I think because the story was not hard news, camera feeds could have been shared and there was not really a need for all of the anchors and reporters to be on site. Watching it on TV, I think I could have enjoyed the same coverage if the anchors were sitting at their desks in New York and talking over live camera feeds. Maybe I am wrong but if less money is spent and less resources are used it could create more opportunities to cover other stories (my next point).

2. With so many things going on in the world (weather in the South, wars, conflicts, economic instability) we do not have a lack of stories to cover in the news business. Sometimes there are too many stories. And some would argue there are too many more serious and important stories to cover than a wedding. So, if a news organization is going to put massive amounts of money and resources behind a story like the Royal Wedding, they should also be putting their resources behind these other stories. This is coming from someone who loves hard news, but I think even those who may prefer E! to CNN would agree that there are lots of impactful stories around the world that are just waiting to be covered.

3. The coverage of the Royal Wedding also made me wonder: "where were the citizen journalists?" Judging from the views of the crowds in London there were plenty of people and I am sure almost all of them had cameras. I think this is one story where the use of citizen journalists could have been capitalized on more than in the past. This story is fun, it's straight-forward (two people getting married), there are not a lot facts to double and triple check, so let the people cover it! I think it's important to have the experts there to tell you who people are, but use the people who are there to tell the story and let them do it themselves. They had even been camping outside for days so they obviously had a strong personal connection to the story.

I enjoyed the coverage and still have not deleted the recordings from that day from my DVR but I think it is important for us, as journalists, to carefully consider our use of our news organizations resources, especially at a time in news when we are doing more with less.