Two New York Times stories on faulty Halliburton cement supplies to BP

The New York Times posted two stories covering the "unstable" cement Halliburton supplied to BP for its well. The article, "Panel Says Firms Knew of Cement Flaws Before Spill", by John M. Broder has a more focused lead and body than "Inquiry Puts Halliburton in a Familiar Hot Seat" by Barry Meier and Clifford Kraus. I'm a bit surprised that The New York Times' editors placed both of these stories on the "Front Page" section of their "Today's Paper" page online.

Lead

Broder's lead lets the reader know what the article is about right away, "Halliburton officials knew weeks before the fatal explosion of the BP well in the Gulf of Mexico that the cement mixture they planned to use to seal the bottom of the well was unstable but still went ahead with the job, the presidential commission investigating the accident said on Thursday." However, Meier and Kraus' article doesn't mention the Halliburton cement incident until the second paragraph. Instead, it talks about Halliburton's past issues which gives readers no idea of what the article is about. Meier and Kraus lead with, "Halliburton is back in the spotlight, and once again, in an uncomfortable way. In recent years, the giant energy services company has found itself under scrutiny over allegations that it performed shoddy, overpriced work for the United States military in Iraq, bribed Nigerian officials to win energy contracts and did brisk business with Iran at time when it faced sanctions." When I read that lead, I was a little lost. I had no idea which one of those topics the article was about. Turns out, it was about yet another topic covered in later paragraphs.

Body Paragraphs

Broder's body paragraphs stay focused on the Halliburton's cement controversy. In contrast, Meier and Kraus are all over the board with their Halliburton story. They keep going back and forth between the cement controversy, Halliburton's past controversies, and Halliburton's image damage. It has three separate stories that can be their own articles. It's confusing.