No. Movies are there primarily to entertain. News stories are there to inform. If I wanted the dramatic, drawn-out version, I'd see the "based on a true story!" version.
There are lots of events I could be learning about in a day, and I'd like to be able to get the important stuff out of a new story and go on to the other stuff. In contrast, you can't similarly shorten a movie while sticking to its purpose (usually).
Who said it was a news story? It's not about an especially current event, and Wired is not a news magazine (for that, see Newsweek, Time, or any number of others); they're a tech/nerd culture periodical. They've has always had a major focus on long-form journalism.
Then don't read stories from sources that are known to contextualize rather than report the facts. It's like you keep touching a hot stove, and complain how it keeps burning you.
Who said I did? Of course I ignore such stories, or skim past the first 15 paragraphs to get to the meat.
If I want a page turner, I'll get a novel. For news stories, I just want the information. Time spent learning about the color of the subjects coat is time I could spend reading another story, learning something useful, or entertaining myself through a medium actually optimized for that.
Oh right. I forgot you are the sole arbiter of what is entertaining or useful to learn. My bad, I'll go figure out how to stop being entertained by long-form journalism stories like this. My bad.
