[logicrook]

Honestly, why? After reading a few of them, I was completely sick of this format. It appears to me as information-free fluff, written in a very generic style.

What do you like in this format? I genuinely don't understand how it can sell, but if it does, there must be something?

[tcpekin]

It can also be fun to read something that just isn't parsed down to the bare facts. For example, in my opinion, [0] would be much less interesting without the benefits of long form journalism.

[0] http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-04/ff_diam...

[logicrook]

It seems that most often the pieces that try to be too literary (or too story-esque) tend to distort the facts to best fit the narrative (or rather the narrative fallacy). Doesn't that worry you?

[SerLava]

The problem is labeling. The headline says the article is information about the urgency of the search.

It's an intentional lie because "How the MH370 Search is Going" or whatever won't get clicks.

[Splines]

Low density information is easier to digest.

Plus, like a stick of gum, sometimes you just have nothing to do and it fills the time.