Most newspaper “stories” are like  bad theater because…
    1. The audience usually leaves during the First Act.
    2. They’re devoid of any denouement.
   The problem?
    Most newspaper “stories” don’t work.
    Basically because they’re not “stories” – but rather, a compilation of data and facts presented in journalism’s traditional "inverted pyramid" of declining interest and meaning.
    Again, most newspaper stories are more about what happened – as opposed to what’s happening.
    And all this is painfully true in the Brave New Eworld of Platforms and Aggregator Journalism – where the Jolt trumps Meaning.   
    That said…
    Consider, how – in his comment below -- John Updike talks about what a story should do – as opposed to what a story is about.

   I want stories to (1) startle me and engage me within the first few sentences, and in their middle, to (2) widen or deepen my knowledge of human activity, and to end by giving me (3) a sensation of completed statement.   
   
   True.
   All this could be nothing more than the senile ramblings of a bitter old man.
   However...
   I believe the following serve as frightening left brainer proof of my point:    

Five steps to multimedia storytelling
http://www.newsu.org/node/338

Storytelling on the internet
http://community.naa.org/blogs/foundation/archive/2008/10/22/alternative-storytelling.aspx

And more from Poynter
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/media-lab/social-media/139066/new-facebook-data-show-7-keys-to-maximum-engagement-for-journalists/