Because it is a feature article, not a news or news analysis story. The latter types have a very different 'pyramidal structure' where the most salient facts are in the opening sentences and each subsequent paragraph adds less vital supporting information and colour. That story structure was specifically designed so that as different editions of the paper came out, if a story needed to be cut it could be essentially cut from the bottom in ever increasing amounts without it needing to be be re-written; in extremis being cut all the way back to the opening sentence, in which case it would simply be a 'news in brief' or Nib item.
Feature stories have typically attempted to hook the reader not through a news lead, but though a colour intro - and one technique is to introduce an abstract issue by relating it through a case-study. You may not like them, but when done well they can work.
Being done well, however means that the case study should be fairly short and there shouldn't be a mismatch between headline promising one thing and annoying the reader when the opening paragraphs don't deliver.
In traditional print, the combination of headline, subhead and design combined gives you an idea of the type of article you are about to read. However when the headline is simply posted as a link, it can feel like bait-and-switch. You go in expecting a pithy summary of the issues, you get a feature article.
This is a side effect of the way the story is posted, rather than a particular problem with the journalism, in my opinion, though I do think the initial anecdotage is a bit leisurely and meandering in this case, for my taste.