While it’s not appropriate for every subject, or every hour of ones day, it is really a lovely thing and we should cherish those who expend the effort to create long and detailed narrative works.
If you’re not in the mood for a story of this kind and just want to know what happened, the headline is a pretty accurate summary.
Storytelling is about narrative. It's about conveying a sequence of ideas in such a way as to make an impression. One can achieve storytelling without an abundance of irrelevant details ("Sometimes a travelling circus unfolds itself on the hard-packed sand of the heath’s carpark" does nothing to further establish our sense of setting, nor to characterize anything at all) and just being over-dramatic (leading with an inset quote about little at all, but making sure to lead with the title 'Counter-Terrorism Command').
Just because it's storytelling doesn't mean it's /good/ storytelling. The whole thing stays just one shade shy of purple. That is annoying as hell for a lot of people, and not at all "a great gift of being alive" that is "a really lovely thing." On the contrary: that's something a lot of even-literary editors would take a hacksaw to.
Nonetheless I’m glad you posted it. I think it’s a positive thing when people expound at length on subjects that interest them.
There is a reason. A modern paper wants articles that are long, with the meat of the matter spread out thoroughly throughout, because this maximizes the amount of ads you can fit in between paragraphs, and maximizes the chances a reader will view them.
In general: if you're wondering why some aspect of journalism is rotten, it's most likely because it needs to accommodate advertising.
It's not like there's a prize at the end, or some secret promo code hidden within the words. It's created for the purpose of idle consumption.
I had been of the mistaken opinion that the term covered far greater ground.