That's the problem right there. Articles are the white sugar of information. They contain a tiny amount of actual info, but not enough to be useful in any meaningful way. If you truly want to learn about something, read a book or a paper. Articles will get you nowhere.
I think it's better just to call them layman's writing instead of white sugar, as processed sugar is basically a toxin. Understanding layman's writing will get you nowhere in the real world, except as a stepping-stone to further knowledge. Sugar, on the other hand, is actively harming people and is not a stepping-stone to healthy living.
Thus both provide a less than ideal introduction into any novel subject, though I see most popular articles as less 'toxic' than most research articles, especially towards encouraging further interest in the neophyte reader.
For journalism, relevant, incisive, investigative journalism is gold.
Much of what's written is simple pro-forma, filler, stenography, or worst of all: republished press releases -- APR and VPR (audio / video press release) for radio and television, the original "fake news": https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fake_news
A key question for me is whether the article intends principally to inform rather than persuade or distract. Virtually all current business, "style", entertainment/culture, and big-ticket sales (real estate, autos, travel) "reporting" is thinly veiled advertising. A large fraction of political coverage is either stenography or persuasive rhetoric.
Writing with the reader in mind, or at least with the writer's (or client's) ego / wallet, out of mind, is rare.
They take multiple months of research.
What should I call them?
I know this is not true for all papers or topics but it does seem common enough that I run into it frequently.