I don't know about that. Modern longform articles all seem as if they're trying to be The Atlantic, with a very specific style that seems heavily informed by the conventional language of cinematography - and does not translate well to the written word. In thirty frames a second, it's quick and easy to do establishing shots, for example. Starting an essay with one takes a couple of paragraphs, and once you've read enough such pieces to start noticing that they're doing it (that they're all doing it), it quickly becomes tiresome. In such circumstances, you don't get impatient because of pull-to-refresh Twitter poisoning; you get impatient because your time is being wasted.

This Rolling Stone article, meanwhile, isn't like that at all. It starts by quoting four quick stanzas of doggerel to briefly set the tone, and then it's right into the meat of its subject matter. Four sentences in, you know exactly what it's talking about, and if the subject matter interests you at all, you're engaged. It's written with a respect for the value of its audience's time that is nowhere evident in the modern longform style.

If I had to put the difference briefly, I'd put it like this: the Rolling Stone article is an example of genuine craftsmanship in nonfiction prose. It has a point to make, and it does so, in a way that's interesting and enjoyable without overstaying its welcome. Conversely, the Atlantic style, in which modern longform is conventionally done, is an example of performative prose-stylistry for its own sake. It screams "Look at me! I'm a writer! Look at the way I paint pictures with words!"

Maybe you enjoy that sort of thing. If so, you're welcome. But saying "look at me, I'm amazing" is not the job of journalism, and it's hardly a surprise that people get impatient with journalists who behave as if saying "look at me, I'm amazing" was not only part of their job, but the meat of it.