New York:
Of all the grave questions news organizations are grappling with these days, one that is truly stumping them is which superlative to attach to Chelsea Clinton's wedding.
A game of "Biggest Wedding of the (insert time element here)" is unfolding on gossip Web sites, in newspaper pages and on network news programs.
On "Today" on NBC, Meredith Vieira called it "the wedding of the decade." The Daily News saw it in grander terms and has stripped a banner across the top of its pages of wedding coverage that reads "Wedding of the Millennium." This seems to be a revelation that came to The News only in the past two days because on Tuesday the paper printed references to the ceremony as the wedding of the year, century and decade all in one article. (This publication settled for "the wedding of the year.")
That no one has the irrefutable answer seems to be a running theme for media coverage of the wedding of Ms. Clinton, 30, to Marc Mezvinsky, 32. The Clinton family has been parsimonious about even the smallest details (it will take place on Saturday), prompting journalists to rely on rumor and speculation as they scramble to ferret out any information they can.
Television anchors have interviewed wedding planners who have nothing to do with the Clintons, prodding them to engage in highly speculative discussion of what the affair might look like. Reporters have mused about many details, like how expensive the rented portable toilets will be and what Bill Clinton's demeanor might be like on the big day.
Use of the word "exclusive" has been liberal. TMZ reported an exclusive that Abba, Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder were all on the wedding play list.
In one of the more enterprising articles to speculate on what the wedding planning has involved, The News conducted a forensic accounting of the cost, arriving at a figure of somewhere between $3 million and $5 million, relying on estimates from caterers, wedding planners and others.
That figure was promptly dismissed by other news outlets. Betsy Gleick, the executive editor of People, said the number was "completely wrong," adding, "We know so."
Ms. Gleick would not get into People's plans for covering the wedding, which will be hard for every media outlet because the roads and airspace around the venue will be closed, except to say, "I guess all I can say is we hope to really be able to tell our readers what this wedding was like."
Us Weekly, People's competitor, said it was sending two reporters to Rhinebeck, N.Y., the village about 90 miles from New York City where the event will occur. They will be relying on "sources who actually live up there," said the magazine's editor, Caroline Schaefer, and gathering information on the ground.
"The Early Show" on CBS will broadcast live from Rhinebeck on Saturday. Both "Today" and "Good Morning America" have had correspondents reporting live from Rhinebeck this week.
Some members of the news media seem bored with the whole thing. Politico, known for smothering political stories with swarms of reporters, is not sending any reporters to Rhinebeck.
"We don't have much planned," said Jim VandeHei, Politico's executive editor. If Politico does anything, he said, it would be to assign reporters to reach out to guests once the wedding is over.
The Washington Post, hoping to avoid the game of who-is-wearing-what, plans three days of coverage, sending two reporters and a photographer. They will, among other things, report on how the wedding affects Rhinebeck and how guests interact with one another once they cut loose on the town, said the editor of the paper's Style section, Ned Martel.
As for the question of wedding of the year, decade or millennium, Mr. Martel said, "Wedding of the moment."