I think, in general, you will find that to be a rare thing. Even if you start with a small population that doesn't require "setting the scene," as soon as the population grows, so does the requirement.
I would claim that even in the 400 days I've been here on HN I've seen this happening. When I first arrived it was possible to have a short, to-the-point, informative comment that required the reader to think hard before they got the most out of it. Most of them did.
Now it's necessary to create longer, more detailed, more direct comments that set the scene, make their point, put the point in context, and draw conclusions. This is an inevitable consequence of a larger audience. It also means that the subsequent discussion will be "diluted" because of the wider range of experience and ability of the participants. As far as I can seem it cannot be avoided.
Nor is it necessarily to be regarded as a criticism. If you want a broad range of opinions so you can learn from all points of view then you need a large population from which to draw them. You then must realise that it's not the same as it used to be, and one's style must change to match the new audience.
Finally, I do not think this is a question of "intellectual integrity," and labelling it as such is unhelpful. People will always tend to have an opinion, and setting it aside during a discussion in order to listen/read dispassionately is highly unnatural. It is better to work with human nature rather than demand that your audience set aside their natural tendencies, perhaps especially in the West, where schools are starting to require that their students have an opinion, even when they don't actually know anything.