To take the BBC Online story as an example, that journalist had just 314 words
Dantruck
Did the journalist really have just 314 words?
You make realistic points about how much "joe public" would actually be interested or motivated to read on this subject. So I agree that to engage the reader the journalist needed to boil the story down, get the news up front et cetera however the article under discussion was online!
Obvoulsy (As you know!) print editorial space is dictated by advertising space and cover price so there is more pressure on word count. But online the marginal cost of additional copy is basically the time take to reseach and write it.
I think this is a case of a journalist having this story on a long list of stuff to be covered and doing a fairly bog standard "air disaster report write up" - scan the report then write a reminder of remind people when and where it happened, highlight simply digested major causes, move on to next story.
Just the sort of copy that gets up the nose of professionals in any industry that know of or can see more complex issues below the surface of a rushed and over simplified news report, but as you say it's what the punters like!