This 'cut from the bottom' structure is maybe necessary but really fatiguing.
When I was learning Chinese, we had to read such news articles. When you have to analyze it word by word, it becomes evident that the authors is just diluting the sauce, adding more water every paragraph.
Maybe it is one of the reason for journalism to be a living dead. Interesting writings, the ones that hook their readship, are just the opposite: the more you read, the deeper you are immerged in the story (for fiction), the more you understand and discover (for non-fiction).
BTW: Just checked a bit pg's papers: they are not 'cut from the bottom', not at all.
I don;t understand why you think it's fatiguing. With a news story, the idea is that you should only have to read the first sentence to get the gist and to decide whether you want to read further.
Each subsequent sentence adds further detail, with the most salient facts always coming first. So you stop reading when you have as much detail as you want, safe in the knowleddge you're not missing anything too important.
If the author is diluting, simply repeating things already written at greater length they're not doing it correctly.
Just to reiterate, PG's articles aren't news stories so there is no need to follow this pattern. There are many other kinds of journalistic leads - the colour intro, the delayed drop, etc.
When I was learning Chinese, we had to read such news articles. When you have to analyze it word by word, it becomes evident that the authors is just diluting the sauce, adding more water every paragraph.
Maybe it is one of the reason for journalism to be a living dead. Interesting writings, the ones that hook their readship, are just the opposite: the more you read, the deeper you are immerged in the story (for fiction), the more you understand and discover (for non-fiction).
BTW: Just checked a bit pg's papers: they are not 'cut from the bottom', not at all.