In the article "Amid clashes, Greek Parliament approves austerity measures, the CNN wire staff began by explaining the reasons for the protesting by saying,
"Lawmakers in Greece voted early Monday to approve another round of austerity measures, sought in return for a new eurozone bailout of the debt-stricken country, while protests raged in the streets."
This allowed those who did not know the context in which the article was written to understand why they are protesting. I think this is appropriate but i think the most important fact was that 70 people were injured in a protest, which isn't written until the third paragraph.
From there they move on to go back and forth, describing Greece's debt and what the plan is to pay back loans and debt. They do an effective job of quoting stakeholders, including the Greek Prime Minister. he discusses the consequences of not passing the bill, which I think is important to readers.
One source they did not consult, however, was the people protesting. I'm not sure how they can have an effective story without talking with those who played a vital part in the event. I would have asked at least one or two protesters what they saw during the protests and why they were fighting in the first place. They described through a CNN associate the background of the protest but it doesn't have the same effect as a direct quote would have.
Another interesting angle would have been a few paragraphs about what the United States is doing in regards to the situation, if anything. Even though it is a European story it has effects across the globe.
Overall I think the structure makes sense and provides sufficient information, but I would have added the few aforementioned items that would have added some depth and important perspectives that were left out.