I’m really not a fan of even long form reporting bringing the author into the story so much. It feels very much an artifact of this generation of reporters who seek celebrity as much as (more than?) telling an informative and neutral story.
Is it surprising that journalists who grow up reading Hunter Thompson go on to write like Hunter Thompson? I think that's a pretty natural progression, without needing to blame generational narcissism. If anything, it seems like World War II was the major turning point for involving the author into the story.
A lot of the corporate responses wouldn't have as much impact if they were stated more neutrally like "These 3 stock manufacturers declined to comment", or just providing their nonanswers sequentially.
The author's bio also describes him as "chef, author and host of the YouTube cooking show Don’t Panic Pantry", so I think the style is more appropriate here than it would be written by a professional journalist on a more strictly "news" site.
It summarizes the details without any narrative, and concludes with:
> While he was mostly stone-walled, Galuten was able to confirm this from at least one major producer. A General Mills representative told him that the Progresso Chicken Broth recipe starts with a broth concentrate. Then they add in water and additional ingredients to create what you buy in the store. Or, Galuten, says “just buy literally any box of chicken stock because they are probably all the same.”
Frankly I don't find this as interesting as the original post.
I guess it seems more down to earth and less sterile than presenting the facts in a traditional "journalist" third person way.
Maybe I'm biased because I also write in this style for my own blog, but I frequently see this style used by hobbyists exploring technical topics on the front page of HN. E.g. a random post from the front page right now [2]
[1]: https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/whats-in-store-bought-ch...
[2]: https://oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/my-class-required-ai-h...