A study examined reports of the American invasions of the Dominican Republic (1965) and Grenada (1983) to determine whether there were substantive differences in coverage as a result of differing journalistic conditions. First-day New York Times reports of both invasions were analyzed both quantitatively (number of stories published, amount of illustrative material, etc.) and qualitatively (kinds of stories, datelines, sources, etc.). Analysis revealed several times as much coverage of the Grenada invasion, but the stories did not come from a proportionately greater number of sources. It is possible to account for these differences by considering the Times' additional quarter century of experience and the increased availability of electronic newsgathering equipment. The two events were also perceived differently, with the Dominican action being seen as a peacekeeping affair but Grenada involving more shooting. Many initial Grenada invasion reports later proved erroneous, so that while the Times warrants praise for its Grenada coverage, any praise must be tempered with an admonition against self-satisfaction with a job only partially done. (SG)