I think the argument would be that you don't "wait around" so long to get to the point. Oftentimes a news story can be written with the main point in the headline, summarized in the first paragraph and then really explained using the rest of the article.

It's fair in my mind to complain that you have to read a bunch of fluff (arguably to drive ad impressions) to find the actual news part. I expect that from HuffPo for sure, less so from NYT.

The inverted pyramid is a well documented technique for getting to the point quickly, and if you search it you'll find tons of articles by big name schools and institutions explaining it. Here's one. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/journali...

▲

scott_w 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Which would be a reasonable argument but it's not the one that sokoloff made. They clearly have issues with the accusation that Lutnick is corrupt.

> Overlap? These interests are barely even tangent.

> I feel like NYT's standards used to be higher than that...

You can see there's nothing in their comment that highlights frustration with an ability (or lack of) to find the information they clicked to read about.

	▲	msandford 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Did we read the same first half of the comment? It describes font size and weight of the headline and the font size and weight and how far down the first supporting fact is. There is then further commentary on how relevant or not relevant the fact is. But the first half of the complaint is literally about the organization and formatting.