In the fifth paragraph, it says "Without fresh clues, the hunt should end about June, when four ships are due to finish combing the seas off western Australia." I imagine that the news would be quite boring if every article were written as a bullet-point list of points. Sometimes people enjoy reading a story, not just a two minute summary.

That's just bad journalism. The first few lines should be who-what-when-where-why. Then you fill in the details and backstory at length.

It's called "long-form journalism." It's apparently extremely popular, but I consider it to be the worst medium ever invented.

There's nothing wrong with long form journalism if you have a complex story to tell with lots of information to convey. The problem is not with the format, it's with journalists trying to pad out a tweet's worth of information into a long-form article.

I'm much less forgiving of the format. Every example I've seen has been a colossal and seemingly deliberate waste of the reader's (my) time. Even when it is reasonably skillfully written and contains information on a subject I'm interested in, I vastly prefer the writing style of, say, Wikipedia.

When they combine these god-damned long form articles with clickbait titles it's that much worse.

At least clickbait spam content has the class to let you off the hook after 5 seconds.

You click on an article about MH370 or the Paris attacks or something, and the fourth paragraph is "Jean-Denis lives in a quiet suburb of Orlean with his two children and their dog, a basset hound golden retriever mix named Harmonie." Good god! It's the slow, lingering death by a thousand cuts.

Haha so true. And then the mix of chronology just to mix things up...

"But Jean-Denis didn't always live a comfortable life in the suburbs. The first seven years of his life he grew up with his grandparents in Transylvania. The potato crop wasn't always good, and the long winters taught him about patience. A trait he's been needing in the search for the MH370."

Why not just read for the pleasure of it? Do you every read anything from The New Yorker, or Esquire, or The Atlantic, etc.? There can be great stories that are enjoyable to read, while still being nonfiction.

No, I think GP is right. Compare a typical long-form piece to e.g. a textbook. A well-written textbook has much more information, but still organizes it in such a way so that you can quickly understand what you're getting into. By comparison, I find that long-form journalism typically buries this information so that even if there is a meaningful summary, you have to build it yourself (and obviously you can only do this after having spent the time to read it in the first place).

My point is that long-form journalism isn't pleasurable to read. The writing style is incredibly belabored, and I am fairly convinced that this is the intention of the authors. It clearly works for many readers, but not for me, and I wish there was always a clearer upfront distinction between traditional news articles and long-form articles.

English is my second language, and while I'm able to skim and read text very quickly, increased use of literary vocabulary puts me off very quickly. It feels like pulling the hand brake. These articles are that much more tiresome to read. Also the longer, convoluted arguments force me to read the thing word by word until I can get the gist.

Once I discover it's in fact a long-form article, I will space bar-skim to see if there is any merit, and stop reading in 99% of cases.

I read lots of novels for the sheer pleasure of it. But reading the news is different. I don't read it for the same reason I read novels; I read it because I want to find out what's going, and because learning interesting things is fun. I too find writing styles that don't optimize for those purposes in the news to be infuriating, and I agree with baddox that I would much rather read Wikipedia articles (of which I have read many, for hours on end) than meandering news stories.

Would it help if you think of it as a form of literature, rather than a means of devouring information by the most efficient means possible? It may still not be for you, and this may not be a good example of it, but it is a genre with purposes other than what you are assuming.

I'm probably a bit old-fashioned, but I think that the set 'literature' does not intersect with the set 'bounces a giant angled magenta byline in my face' (the "find a $100 smartphone" bit)

Actually, one question I used to like to ask people: "In bookshops, what qualifies a book to move from 'fiction' to 'literature'?" (yes, you can get poetry and whatnot in the literature section, but it's primarily fiction-based)

In the Strand, the section you're talking about is called "Literary Fiction." Since we're talking about sets:

  literature ⊃ literary fiction

There's plenty of literature that is not fiction.

Well, sure. 'Literature' is used for all kinds of things, from classic novels to poetry to scientific papers. But in (non-specialist) bookshops, it's primarily 'classic/good fiction' with some other stuff thrown in. Those shelves are usually marked 'Literature', not 'Literary Fiction'...

Yes, that's true, one definition of literature can be anything that is written. I'm not trying to have a semantic argument with you though. Use whatever words you want, but if you think of this long form journalism as a form of... let's call it art writing, then maybe it would make more sense. If you want to say that having magenta pull quotes makes it not art then I can't help you.

Do you really don't see any value in a long form piece like you'd find in The New Yorker? I'm not saying that's all gold - it's easy to screw up and some topics simply don't need it, but if well done, I often find myself not being able to stop reading.

Then read Wikipedia.

So what? This isn't a newspaper article, it is a nonfiction story. Bloomberg contains sections of their magazines written in your format; I always skip them. I prefer the long-form stories.

Honestly, why? After reading a few of them, I was completely sick of this format. It appears to me as information-free fluff, written in a very generic style.

What do you like in this format? I genuinely don't understand how it can sell, but if it does, there must be something?

It can also be fun to read something that just isn't parsed down to the bare facts. For example, in my opinion, [0] would be much less interesting without the benefits of long form journalism.

[0] http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-04/ff_diam...

It seems that most often the pieces that try to be too literary (or too story-esque) tend to distort the facts to best fit the narrative (or rather the narrative fallacy). Doesn't that worry you?

The problem is labeling. The headline says the article is information about the urgency of the search.

It's an intentional lie because "How the MH370 Search is Going" or whatever won't get clicks.

Low density information is easier to digest.

Plus, like a stick of gum, sometimes you just have nothing to do and it fills the time.

It's the business model. The longer you are on a web page the more ad cycles you see. I agree with you, its' not good writing, but I think that is where it comes from.

Good point. There's new requirements on writers now.

In the old days, they'd buy your paper if they could scan all the stories and get information easily. Now, the reader is only looking at one story referred by a search engine or blogpost or link farm.

But the more you annoy the reader that's just looking for the reason the search is going to fail in 30 days. And the more you do that as a business, the more a bunch of readers (those who prefer that you not waste their time) get inoculated to you, and quit clicking on links to you. That's bad business.

That's bad long-term, but profitable short-term. It's rare a business that cares about the former.

> I imagine that the news would be quite boring if every article were written as a bullet-point list of points. Sometimes people enjoy reading a story, not just a two minute summary.

This is exactly what I've wanted but never known how to express it ... is there such a thing? I would love to browse a list of news stories distilled to factual bullet points. Sigh. One can dream :)

I thought there was some technological reason (ie battery dead), but it seems like it's just a funding thing. The batteries only had 30 days of life anyway.

Isn't there an add on or an app or something that summarizes articles via NLP? It would be nice to have an interstitial pop up with the article summarized and the ability to click out and read the full thing for more color.

See https://www.reddit.com/user/autotldr

But it's strange to call June "weeks away", June is months away.

I believe the "weeks" figure is related to this quote: "Without fresh clues, the hunt should end about June, when four ships are due to finish combing the seas off western Australia, Dolan said."

I saw that part. I guess to this journalist, "weeks" really means "four months".

Earth to be swallowed by as sun expands into red giant in a matter of weeks.

4 billion years = 208 billion weeks, right?

Is it really important information? Knowing the answer doesn't change anything about your life.

I consider it to be interesting information. And the author has chosen to tell you an interesting story instead of just a fact fact.

If the goal was to show you something that would satiate the need to be interested then I think the story does a much better job.

When someone offers one thing but provides another, it's called bait-and-switch.

When someone says they'll do one thing but do something else, that's lying.

You don't think the story could have done just as good a job with an actual lede and the rest all the same?

Malaysia, Australia and China funded about two years worth of search. Second anniversary is March 8.