All the facts in order

The New York Times gets right to the point in an article on the Fed's most recent comments. The article leads with the vice chairman of the Federal Reserve's remarks that it would be "flexible and pragmatic," which suggests an opportunity to cut interest rates again. The article notes the unusual candidness of the remarks and then goes on to explain what they signify and how they have already affected markets in the U.S. and abroad. The article ends by updating readers on the real estate market, a driving force behind the current state of the economy.

The Times of London also presents the most important information first in its article on President Musharraf's relinquishment of his role as Army chief of staff in Pakistan. One thing about the article confuses me, though. The byline includes a correspondent in Islamabad and another, presumably in London, yet the article quotes the Islamabad correspondent giving his opinion on the significance of the event. Why is this necessary?

I'm a little confused by the order of events in a Patriot Ledger article on a murder conviction today. The article starts out with the most relevant news--that the state supreme court upheld a 2003 conviction--but goes downhill from there. Twice there's a typo calling the Plymouth County Superior Court the "Plymouth Superior Court county," but that is nonetheless comprehensible. What becomes confusing is the circumstance under which the convicted murderer was able to be tried twice. In trying to stick to a strict inverted pyramid structure, the article does not present the facts in chronological order, but in its discussion of dates, it would be much, much clearer if it had been organized chronologically. The article is so brief that no one would stop reading it two or three sentences appeared earlier than was strictly necessary.