In the CNN story about the Susan G. Komen foundation's decision to stop funding many Planned Parenthood programs, there were 13 different sources. The sources used included the offices of the primary companies involved in the stories, including Planned Parenthood, the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg's office, and the Susan G. Komen foundation.
The sources who were individually named included the obvious people a reader would want to hear from such as the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, and both the CEO and the president of the Komen foundation, Nancy Brinker and Liz Thompson, respectively.
I noticed there seemed to be significantly more quoted sources from the Komen Foundation than from Planned Parenthood. This seemed appropriate, however, considering the Komen foundation was the organization taking the action in the story. In addition, Planned Parenthood and the mayor were both criticizing the Komen foundation and making somewhat inflammatory claims about the Komen foundation. In order to give the Komen foundation a fair voice in the story, I think it was important to find as many comments from them as possible.
In addition to Brinker and Thompson, the people named from the Komen foundation included Kathy Plesser, who was against the decision the Komen foundation made, Mollie Williams, who no longer works for Komen, but was saddened by the split between Planned Parenthood and the Komen foundation, and Elizabeth Berger, who gave a statement about a resignation of an employee for the Komen foundation.
In addition to the above-named sources, CREDO, a corporate supporter of Planned Parenthood, and the American Life League, a supporter of the Komen foundation decision were both quoted.
The sources were spread throughout the story, though most of the Pro-Planned Parenthood sources were near the beginning of the story and most of the sources associated with the Komen foundation were found near the end. I think this happened due to coincidence based on the way the story flowed best.
The journalist who wrote the article allowed the story to flow from one idea to the next without trying to equal out every opposing quote or idea immediately, but letting each idea have it's own place in the article. My questions were answered by the sources in the story as they arose in my mind. In this way, it seemed as though the article lead me down a mapped out path in such a way that it didn't feel forced.