I initially thought your comment was perhaps a bit snarky. Two thirds of the way through the article, and having given up on it myself, I'm less critical of your comment.
One point I noticed before giving up. He criticizes a 'NYT article' for injecting what he perceives as the author's opinion. The 'article' actually appears under their "Dealbook" moniker. Which is, as the URL for the story tends to confirm, a blog. You know, where sometimes opinion is allowed.
I do agree with the overall sentiment: These days, I find many news stories painful to read, and frustrating when I find the actual facts I'm after in the 17th paragraph and/or scattered throughout in seemingly haphazard fashion -- introduced wherever the over-arching effort in creative writing leaves a bit of suitable room. Sometimes, something like USA Today is a relief simply because what stories they do run are briefer and written more in the traditional top down structure that tries to put a summary of the most relevant information at the top and then elaborates on it below.
Not that USA Today is a substitute for the newspapers of yore. But neither is some of the byline heavy tripe that's become so pervasive.
