1) They don't bury the lede. The first paragraph says what the result is immediately, if you understand it already, you're done reading.
2) Inverted pyramid structure. After they explain what happened, they break apart the historical context of the problem itself and give copious examples and metaphors to give the gist of what the problem is about and why it matters that it was solved.
I can't tell you how many of these popsci articles start out with "When Mary was a 3 year old, she used to look up at the stars and ... blah blah ... Now, she's taking on the scientific establishment and daring to do the unthinkable..." etc etc. I just dread skimming through the fluff to try to pick out what the hell was actually done.
Thank you Kevin Hartnett (the author of this piece) for not attempting to turn scientific papers into a human interest story.
Today's society values drama above everything else. It's a shame (either that they do, or that I don't fit in ;-) ).
I stopped watching for exactly the reason you describe.
The exact same thing happened with esports. Five minutes of actual play, 25 minutes of fluff.
All those articles can go burn in a hot, hot fire.