But by that point I was tired of reading, and quit.
Cut it out with the pathos and human interest, and get some of the real point in there quicker.
Don't worry, 57 blogs will distill it down to the core 5 points and post them in a bulleted list with a link-bait title by Friday. But writing is much more than 'get to the point as fast as possible'. These kind of stories are far more interesting than the quick summary articles found on most shitty websites. If you don't like the style, then don't click through to the New Yorker, New York Times, etc.
I agree with you, but my personal reading sweet spot is to get to the point a bit faster than the author of this piece did.
Maybe you could slow down and read the part about how slowing down is good for you.
Modern news reporting dictates that the journalist kick off with something personally identifiable, and only then ease into the facts. The reasons for this are obvious, I think: readers are more likely to connect with, and thus read, a story that they find strikes a chord with them personally; so let's try to cast about with some pathos, and maybe we'll hit some notes in that chord.
But just as with seeing reported gore or pr0n on reddit, repetition of the same formula over time loses its valence with the reader.
I'm tired of that formula in article after article. I want the journalists to find new ways to accomplish it.
It's not this article specifically; this is just one example. It struck me at this time, though, because it's pretty long, and I got through a pretty good chunk of it without a single direct reference to the article's thesis, so it was quite egregious.
The last paragraph on the front page tells you exactly what the article is about. Opening with an human anecdote is a common trope in long-form journalism, because that's what a majority of people want before they will put in the time to read several thousand words about mortality statistics.