I’m not saying it doesn’t have its place. I just don’t want it in hard news and related journalism.
Sinatra is not a hard news subject. That would belong in Playboy or RollingStone or New Yorker.
Imagine a WWII article about any of the mustachioed protagonists and it meandered about their choice of whisker trimming and lifestyle in mountain retreats and seaside dachas instead of all the horrors they caused.
"Instead of" would certainly be bad. But the "textural details" of these long-form articles is the sort of experiential glue that can make the scene -- and the facts -- come alive in the mind of the reader. That makes them memorable and relatable, providing hooks to which the reader can attach their understanding. Like the difference between a getting-started guide and chapter one of a reference book -- they both have their place, but they're not the same thing.
As redler noted, you don't want "instead of," but depending on circumstance you might want "in addition to" -- although I think you're stacking the deck a little with your choice. :)
Also, you can invert that -- the story that seems to be about something relatively inconsequential can be a lens on more complex issues. Emily VanDerWerff at Vox is (at least to me) excellent at talking about society, culture and politics by talking about film and television.
To be clear, I don't want everything to sound like new journalism feature pieces, either, and I'm aware we're veering afield from the linked article's complaints. (I don't think I'm fully on board with that article's kvetching, but Ben Smith is definitely no Gay Talese.)
Sinatra is not a hard news subject. That would belong in Playboy or RollingStone or New Yorker.
Imagine a WWII article about any of the mustachioed protagonists and it meandered about their choice of whisker trimming and lifestyle in mountain retreats and seaside dachas instead of all the horrors they caused.