In this article by BBC News, I noticed that a lot of it was summarization. I think it's really interesting how the BBC has a tendency to skim over the details that American audiences would consider interesting--usually to create a brief article. The elements of this particular article were summarized in order of importance: the who, what, where, and when are addressed in the first paragraph, and the following paragraphs are supplements to the story. In the paragraphs following the first paragraph, we are told that the girls were uninjured, the car was reported stolen, and that the house maintained extensive damages.
I think this article could have been much more effectively written. Though the framework for all the public would need to know about the story is set, the "wow-factor" of this story--the fact that a car crashed into a house--is really skimmed over. I would have liked to know more about why the car crashed into the house, what the family saw outside of the window, what sorts of damage the house sustained, etc. Though this might have been the BBC's first article on this story, I think it would have been justifiable to make it more interesting and filled with facts that describe the sensational aspects of the situation, rather than the skeletal description.