It's called 'burying the lede' and while it would get you fired from daily-newspaper type reporting (where you should articulate the important facts as clearly as possible up front) it's a staple of American long-form journalism. I don't know enough about the history of American literature to know who pioneered this sort of rambling slow-reveal narrative style - maybe Mark Twain? It can be very pleasurable to read for relaxation, or if the work aims to slowly introduce some philosophical idea. Indeed, it can be essential in book-length works, in order to make complex ideas digestible by leavening them with experiential information that provides the reader with valuable context.

But a lot of the time it can just be annoying or a stylistic cliche. As soon as I realize I'm reading an article like this, I usually skip towards the end to see whether there's any sign of a significant payoff. Sometimes there is and I'll go back to the start settle in for the ride, more often I pick up the few facts that I wanted to know and save myself a lot of eye-rolling.