Record Funds for Clinton
New York Times article can be found here: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/campaign-cash-clinton-at-26-million/
Los Angeles Times article can be found here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-fundraising2apr02,1,7126590.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
Summary: Senator Hiliary Rodham Clinton announced Sunday that her presidental primary campaign has raised $26 million in three months, three times as much as the previous record for a Democratic primary at this stage.
Both articles utilized the same concise, hard-news leads which stated the significance of the $26 million raised by Clinton and were quite similar.
The body of both articles took markedly different approaches. The NY Times article devoted fairly lengthy paragraphs to a variety of points, such as the amount raised raised by other candidates, and the strategy behind the timing of Clinton's release of information. In contrast, the LA Times coverage only briefly touched on the significance behind the numbers, noting Senator Barack Obama's decision to keep his numbers quiet and differences between the primary and general election.
Overall, the New York Times article clearly provided better context and coverage of Senator Clinton's record breaking performance. It did this by providing background information on important perspectives, "In an example of the art of disclosing fundraising figures, Senator Clinton’s campaign declined to disclose how much of the $26 million had been raised for the Democratic primary campaign account and how much for ithe general election, " and supporting it with the importance of such actions, "Under campaign finance laws, a donor can contribute up to $2300 to a primary campaign and, if they chose, up to an additional $2300 for the general election." The Los Angeles Times article merely stated fact without exploring why the facts were newsworthy.