double-h

http://www.startribune.com/722/story/956817.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html
The New York Times reported that five men were killed Tuesday when their helicopters came under attack during a routine protection detail. The first helicopter carrying four men crashed into one of central Baghdad's most dangerous neighborhoods. This sparked a five-hour battle where the second helicopter was hit by gunfire. American forces recovered the bodies and secured the area. It is unknown the condition of the bodies as well as exact details about the attack. Violence overtook the city and included bombings. Groups of insurgents tried to escape across lakes in boats or atop roofs. Many recent attacks have also killed 12 American soldiers.
The author put the whole picture together. He wrote what, to whom, where, why and when it happened. The story provides a clear timeline of what happened. He didn't write how this will effect the war in Iraq, but he does explain the current situation. His lead was strong but the first sentance was wordy. He mentioned the action (death of soldiers), when it happened and how it happened. It grabbed the attention of the reader and continued to explain what exactly happened. It is hard to stay objective in writing about a war, but the author does a good job of keeping his opinion out of the article.
http://www.startribune.com/722/story/956817.html
The Star Tribune also wrote about this event. The Star Tribune wrote about who was responsible for the attacks, although at this time that information is unknown. Both stories do not name the soldiers involved in the shooting because that information has not been released. The Star Tribune doesn't mention the second helicopter until the fifth paragraph. The New York Times wrote "the gunner in a second helicopter apparently died when he was struck," whereas the Star Tribune wrote "a second helicopter also was struck, but there were no casualties among its crew." The Star Tribune's lead was also wordy but gave most information to draw the reader in because they mention how the soldiers were killed. The Star Tribune wrote that the soldiers were killed execution style while on the ground but the New York Times doesn't mention this in the article.
I think the Star Tribune did a better job of providing a strong lead to the story, although the facts between the two stories are different. The New York Times offered a better idea of what happened once the hellicopter crashed. Overall, the New York Times did a better job of reporting the story, in my opinion.