U of M vs. Wisconsin: the reciprocity dispute
An article from the Pioneer Press with the headline "U threatens to end tuition deal with Wisconsin" talks about the recent debate what whether the tuition deal between Minnesota and Wisconsin should continue or end. Minnesota has apparently lost a lot of money because of this reciprocity - $6 million per year in lost tuition. Wisonsin says that they shouldn't have any consequences from the large increase in tuition for Minnesota's schools. Unless Wisconsin students agree to pay as much or more than Minnesota residents do to attend the University, the u may end the tuition deal.
The article's lead is just one sentence long and gets right to the point. There is so much information on this topic and so many people involved that it would definitely be difficult to fight the urge and not fill the lead with endless information. The reporter did a good job in that aspect. The article as a whole is a little hard to follow - it tries to explain the situation clearly, but doesn't quite get there.
You can find this article at: http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/16538804.htm
The second article I found that dealt with this topic is from the Star Tribune and was given the headline "U threatens to quit tuition reciprocity deal." This article's lead takes a little bit of a different perspective. It indicates that the "battle" has been going on for some time and explains what the issue was before. The reader knows right off the bat that this is a sort of follow-up story rather than brand new news coverage.
This article is at: http://www.startribune.com/1592/story/961067.html
Although the two articles are written from different perspectives, I still think that the second article has a better lead. For that matter, I think the second article (from the Star Tribune) is more interesting in general than the first (from the Pioneer Press). The Star Tribune article seems to go more in depth with valuable information and people involved that is captivating to the readers. I feel that the second article is way more clear, as well; it is easier for the audience to understand the situation.