The journalistic 'style' of journalistic pieces seems 'too fiddly' for some, and even 'infantilized' for other people. It's a matter of taste and I'm sure this style is set as standard because it works, i.e., pleases the majority of readers.

I have an interest in this bacause I accidentally studied a bit (one of my majors shared some of its credits with the Journalism program at my college).

The things people dislike, as I see them:

1- Giving context through elongated prose or "fluff", instead of straight to the point facts. Some people would just rather have a list of the games Synergistic worked in instead of the five first paragraphs of this piece, for example. Also: "Blizzard’s protests fell on deaf ears. CUC was determined (...)" vs. "Blizzard protested but CUC did not comply".

2- Using examples when they're not needed (for that audience). Explaining what happened of relevance in the 70's for someone who was _there_ during said period, for example.

3- Nonlinearity in telling the story. Going back and forth on quotes from different people. Presenting the controversy kinda like a conversation. Makes the editing clear and some readers reject pieces where it's clear some stuff was left out or is out of order.

Anyway, maybe I've written too much about this. In any case, I really do believe that, in this age of personalized content, there are enough people who reject the 'journalistic style' to warrant publications that actively avoid it.