This is the downside of 'celebrity journalism'; when almost every professional writer insists on having a headshot and bio on every article published, then their output becomes as much about self-promotion as about reportage. If their reportage falls short it damages their brand, and so the story must be spun in such a way as to reflect well upon the writer. Hence the phenomenon of writers breathlessly reporting every snub or obstacle as if it were a personal affront to them, frequently mentioning themselves in the story, burying the lede beneath many paragraphs of overdramatic narrative, and baiting their writing with more and more clicheed hooks and attention-grabbing headlines. A good many writers are no longer practicing journalism, but rather marketing their own brand of punditry. I partly blame Hunter S. Thompson for this - he popularized a narcissistic style of writing that suggests the events under discussion are nowhere near as interesting as the way in which the author experienced them - except that Thompson was both more interesting and more acutely observant than most of his imitators.
Of course, the increasing popularity of blogging is another major factor; unlike print journalism for most of its history, the marginal cost of adding extra information about the author or publishing every new bit of ephemera on a blog is virtually zero, and so there is every incentive to do so. Personalization is thought to make readership more sticky, and so everyone does it; the same way every blog and news page is now festooned with invitations to like things on Facebook, join the conversation on Twitter, tell them what you think in the comments, and so forth. Very little of this adds information to any given story - in the main, it's just an attempt to buy traction by giving free advertising to networking products.