2 for 1

Beaumont boy, 12, accused of killing his friend
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-kidshoot8-2009mar08,0,5163709.story

I really like this article because it is a simple, hard news story. The reporter starts with a clear lead that gets directly to the point. He then follows it with pertinent facts and relevant quotes. Nothing is left out and nothing unnecessary is added. It is simple, factual, and informative.

FBI investigates firebombing of UCLA researcher's car

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-ucla-fire10-2009mar10,0,1587897.story

I picked this article, because it includes an example of correcting misreported information. They apologize for calling the attack a 'firebombin' while the FBI is calling it 'suspicious arson,' yet the continue to refer to the device as a 'firebomb' and to the attack as a 'firebombing." I found this confusing or arrogant. Why apologize if you plan on continuing the action?

I understand that it is a follow up article, yet I still feel like this article is vague. It is just a basic review of what happened, with little new information. Based on the headline and lead, I expected more interesting information about the alledged attackers.