They are asking for control about when the conversation starts. More specifically, they are the ones who know when the article is available, so they can start the conversation at that moment.
Then because they are first, they get to choose the title.
That's all they wish for, not control of the conversation itself.
I still take exception to the manipulation of ostensibly user-generated content sites by content creators. I don't come to HN to see what the editors of publication X managed to time just right, but rather what actual hackers felt like submitting, and the title under which they submitted it.
Well, yeah. That was exactly showerst's original point. They aren't doing that precisely because they - unlike theatlantic and outsideonline and others - feel it's too spammy. The question was if there was some solution which gets them more involved but without that feeling.
For example, one problem with the current system is that they "have to work quite a bit harder to make sure that [they] see submissions to get involved in comment threads when possible." This isn't controlling the conversation, this is improving their engagement with it. (Though it could also be used for evil; consider someone who wants to trash-talk on any posting to fsf.org.)
Think of the "would be nice" as being wistful, rather than a request. After all, they know how to have more control over the timing and headline now, by using "people with well-built-out legit personal accounts to trade off in submitting [their] stuff."
I'm not exactly raging against how it is now, since anything on our domain gets a big (hard earned!) credibility bump from many readers, so we do have an advantage.
My only complaint is that if I have a smaller personal site, I can write an article, then submit it somewhere relevant and with a title that fits, at a time of my choosing. On the other hand, if FP writes some great article about Australia, I can't post it to /r/australianPoliticsSubreddit with an Aussie slang title at 8am AUS time.
Oftentimes I see users submit our articles with these really spammy linkbait titles (presumably for karma?) and then they die an instant death in the new queue, even if the content would've probably been fine at 9am on a Monday with a reasonable title. Now if we'd have had a fair shot and they'd have beaten us to the punch, that's a different story =)
In the scheme of things it's not a huge deal, and even I can't think of a system that would allow this without it being abused, but it is a bit of a frustrating double standard.
Then because they are first, they get to choose the title.
That's all they wish for, not control of the conversation itself.