One problem with news media's near constant obsession with every little detail about the Ukraine scandal (and the Russia investigation) is that the public can easily lose track of what the core issues are; and so making it simpler for people -- e.g. with a Q&A site -- is a must.
Any little misdeed is blown up as the crime to end all crimes; and then a few days later, another one tops it. The news media needs to find a way to keep most of these in the background, and only use big, block-letter headlines for the most egregious stuff.
Or maybe they can save it up, and summarize in a weekly post all the bad stuff.
I had the same problem with the Syrian Civil War: there are just so many details that it's hard to figure out the core issues, unless you are willing to spend several hours on it. It's like a conversation with a historian. They all are very detail-oriented, and love to rattle off lots of facts and causal chains -- but it all blurs together, at least one the first hearing. Scientists talk and think differently: we seek convergence towards a single, overarching theory that we mention first, and then mention the supporting evidence and deductive chains.
So, if i understand you correctly, there are (at least) three approaches:
- A journalistic approach.
- An approach that is detail oriented in much the way an historian might analyze it.
- A scientific approach.
RE: the journalistic approach - sometimes called the first draft of history. A primary driver here is to sell newspapers and satisfy advertisers. This involves selling the news to the public, but also making claims about circulation to impress advertisers.
RE: detail oriented versus scientific approach. Yes, I suppose scientists can be very convergent oriented. Of course that doesn't stop them from being a very talkative and verbose group.
Any approach can be overwhelming to the casual reader. Even concise abstractions run the risk of oversimplification. Readers are often motivated by a "bottom line" approach. As in "please - not another thirty two pages of analysis before you finally get to what happened today."
Concise language can also be very confusing to the layman if there is use of a lot of vocabulary to which (s)he is not familiar. There are only so many times that they are willing to "ask Google" what such and such a word means. In fact, for some that number is approximately zero.
So, one man's "obsession" may be another man's "superficial account." If the source is not considered particularly trustworthy, that can be even more problematic. Most readers resolve that by selecting an interpretation that makes most sense to them. So, an untrustworthy source with an explanation that doesn't seem to make such sense will carry little weight. Conversely, a tweet from Trump may be taken as gospel, "as in pay no attention - it is just 'fake' news."
The result can often be two (or more) competing versions of reality.
Take CNN versus MSNBC.
CNN often tries to have a balanced panel Two Obvious Democrats versus Two Obvious Republicans. Of course, if the Republicans are lying through their teeth, and only the Democrats are telling the truth, then the purpose of educating the public may not be particularly well served. One might add that this can be equally true if the Democrats are doing all of the lying
MSNBC has a somewhat different approach. Don't worry about balance, focus on use of guests who have interesting things to say that will be trusted by your audience. The problem here might very well be that MSNBC will be accused of "bias." This is especially true with the knee-jerk "well that stupid lying corrupt Trump is at it again."
Calling Trump stupid is a little bit lying saying "oh don't worry about that snake and the rattling sound it is making. It can't hurt you."