I don't get moralizing the point. And if you want to go that route, I'd argue that forcing someone who is coming to you based on a headline's promise to sift through a short children's book is disrespectful and rude.

But maybe it's a generational thing and stories are what more people expect now. I bet NYT knows its audience better than I do.

"Sift through". Is that what it's come to? A few paragraphs read in under a minute, is too much to ask of a modern reader?

Kids these days. Bah.

With the exponentially increasing amount of information on the Internet, yes, we have matchingly decreasing amounts of patience for sifting through it. Shit is shit, matters not if it comes in tiny pieces or massive turds. It's about aggregate volume.

I'm the same and it's not like I do it on purpose. I simply cannot enjoy the style, I like the important information up front. If I felt like reading a children's book I'd go grab a children's book. If I'm reading an informational article I want it to read like an informational article.

I understand where you’re coming from, and I’m a proponent of story-telling, but give me the main points first, then let me read the story of if I feel like it.

To be more cynical, this is because it’s behind a paywall. They want to entice you with a little morsel of information, get you hooked into a story, then cut you off at the paywall.

If they gave away all the info in the first few lines, less people would want to keep reading