A prototype is meant to describe a finite portion of an experience – there's more ingredients to the sauce. The work Paul's presenting is that of a teams collaborative effort. Let's not forgot about creative technology, creative strategy, art direction, visual design, content design, interactive design, etc. These individual disciplines (which at times include concepts and aspects intended specifically for certain stakeholders) also need to be present in a static and/or a dynamic presentation of work. A "Product Designer" won't always have the allowance to drive art direction, which is why there's an Art Director. And the client's Art Director (stakeholder) may only be concerned with visual design because the client has a User Experience Director who's only concern is interactivity. You can't always equally weight the importance of these exercises the same as it depends on the situation, scope, and client. So time/cost is a valid argument.

Your statement; "It's a nice visual work but it is obvious that you don't read NYT" doesn't mean much because you're not explaining your issue, or at least it doesn't seem that you are. Are you suggesting that if Paul and his team were to create an interactive prototype then you would retract this comment "it is obvious that you don't read NYT"

Take it for it is; a static mockup. I'd recommend constructively commenting (more than "it's nice") with insight, depth, and substance on the design disciplines that are present in this share out. You're right it's not about you, we're a community that helps to drive this industry, add to it, don't take away from it.