The CBC's Arts coverage is really bad.

Howdy!

Could somebody who is more intelligent and smarter and wiser than I am explain to me what the difference between this story:
Beaverbrook's disputed art draws more visitors, from August 30, 2004

and this story:

Beaverbrook dispute drags on but spurs attendance at NB gallery, published 3 and a half months later?

The August story is 249 words long, the December story is 432 words long. Ok, so I put on my thinking cap... 183 more words, this should be a good thing. Ok, reading closely, we now know that the lawyers have billed everybody $1.5 million. Is this news?

Then there are some quotes from Vincent Prager, a trustee of the Canadian Beaverbrook Foundation and Dan O'Brien, chair of the Beaverbrook gallery's board of directors. Is this news?

And then towards the end of the December article the CBC writes:

...the current legal process – still in a preliminary stage – is going slowly but said that while the gallery is open to an out-of-court settlement, that is not yet in the works.

However at the very end of the same article the CBC writes:

The British foundation and the gallery are settling their respective suits in arbitration.

So which is it folks?

Then lastly, the December article doesn't make any mention of figures, the August article does, I wrote about 'em here. If everybody agrees that Zeke's is 1/10 the size of the Beaverbrook, does this now mean that Zeke's Gallery is 20% of the way towards a story on the CBC?