I'm speaking for the quality of discussion that happens when everyone is aware of the all the facts presented in the article, vs when everyone is mired in unproductive guesswork because they missed the critical details of the threat vector because it's wedged between a description of some boss's pursed lips and the coffee used that in that office.
Only if the debate hinges on the idiosyncratic mannerisms of the subjects of the story. I saw plenty of substantive facts in the Register article, with less filler.
Just accept that not everyone wants the same as you.
I like brevity but the first article painted a much better picture. The second one barely a dip into the most pertinent facts. This company is unknown to most and without the backstory my care level was at 0.
And yet you can’t give examples of the relevant facts that are in the NYer but not the Resgister (style of CEO’s jacket doesn’t count).
I know people have different preferences. But beliefs —about which articles lead to productive discussions — can be confused. No one is spending the hour to read this before commenting. Expecting that is a bad idea.
I didn't care about this based on the register's reporting because they are nobodies. I cared about it based on the newyorkers because they told me the whole story.
Different things are useful at different times. Today that useful thing happened to be the long form journalism rather than than the twitter form journalism.
Nothing wrong with having both. TLDRs will always be popular.