Curious - if you didn’t read the article - how do you know it’s a “nothing piece”?
If that's a sincere question, I have a sincere answer.
But I think my response indicates why I believe that, as I quoted the title, and I believe your "curious" is more a commentary than a question?
First, there was a lot of content quoted before my post in your initial post. That alone gives me a good indication of its content.
Second, news articles are formulaic and predictable. The titles of pieces necessarily denote what they'll discuss and what the main idea is. It's good writing 101. You create interest by telling the readers what they have in store for them, and the writing is easier to follow and digest when a logical progression is followed, giving the reader a figurative roadmap.
This piece is obviously biographical in nature, and the most compelling element, according to the title, is that Benedict has ties to the area. Not much of a news event. I would wager that if I read it in full it's going to talk about Benedict's career in a manner that highlights his ties to the area and rise up the career ladder. That's a human interest story. And sometimes those are interesting. But they're rarely "news." And that's what I mean by "nothing piece." Not that it isn't compelling or worth a read, but rather that timeliness isn't essential for it in the way it would be for a breaking news story.
Breaking news needs to be covered when it happens, or the story has passed. I think a human interest piece about our AD, with the lovey eyes he's making at another school during our tournament run, isn't much of a story and could wait a few days, even if it's slightly less of a draw after the tournament is over.