The pieces are so brief there isn't much room for subject depth, obviously. They immediately begin with the number injured and killed by the accident, announced in the headliner and then repeated in the lead. You're getting the basic gist of when, where, why and how the bus plunged, along with who (in number form) was hurt. There is a conclusion for "20 die in Nepal bus plunge: police," which is not always necessary in news, as we are learning, that blames the tragedy on "shoddy vehicles, reckless driving and bad roads." Is that reiteration even necessary? The driver is already blamed as being reckless in the previous paragraph.
The plunge stories include only one or two contributing quotes. For "8 injured as bus plunges into canal" posted on the Daily Star there is only one quote from the Officer-in-Charge. Would this be the correct way to write the officer's title? Or is this an attempt to cut words in a tight format? Also, the message from the officer is unclear:
Officer-in-Charge of Hathazari Police Station Mohammad Ismail told The Daily Star that the bus was salvaged but they did not find any body inside it.
Are they saying there were NO BODIES or NOBODY inside the salvaged bus? Time is clearly a determiner for "bus-plunges." They are so empty in content for something that had it happened in our country would be a front page story. As I said in my other entry, I think the idea of quick information is good, but it should be something that committing to fewer words wouldn't devoid of purpose or meaning. If a bus accident in Nepal isn't worthy of more in depth coverage, maybe it's a topic that shouldn't be addressed at all.