[friendlygrammar]

You can tell that a bunch of people only upvoted because of the title and never read the article because the article itself is trash.

[mjevans]

It took me a good while to read it because it is rather information sparse (lots of puffery and filler content).

It's also setup with more of a story to the situation that shows a biased view of 'how we got here'.

I wonder if that 'storytelling' is something readers expect / prefer in general or if it's a crutch that is commonly used by in depth reporters who should instead be primarily presenting information with a great depth.