You may have seen the article in New York Times with the headline, "Major Kerry Donors Actually Give More to Bush." It begins:
Senator John Kerry is beginning his drive to compete financially against President Bush with a disadvantage: almost half of his campaign's largest sources of money have given more money to Mr. Bush, according to a new study.
The reality is newsworthy; large corporations have mechanisms that encourage employees to contribute, and that can add up. But employees are contributing only on behalf of themselves, not their employer. And, since individual donors can't give more than $2,000 to any presidential campaign (or more than $5,000 to any presidential candidate's PAC), that would make impossible for a "major Kerry donor" who had given the maximum allowable amount to the Democrat to have given more to Bush.
But readers don't necessarily know that. When they read that, "9 of Mr. Kerry's top 20 donors favored Bush," it's reasonable -- but wrong -- for them to conclude that the word "donors" refers to individual people.
In cases like this, words matter -- those of both the reporter and the headline writer. And, as Mark Twain once noted, the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
By the way, "lede" is newspaperese for the lead paragraph of a story. I think it is written that way to prevent confusion with lead, the stuff type used to be made of and also the spacing between lines of type.