To be honest, I find the metacommentary a bit more interesting than the article.
The metacommentary is what shapes HN as a community. In that sense, at least, it has some value.
The article on the other hand: I've already read it a lot of times. First there were the articles that GM may declare bankruptcy, then there were the articles how GM is more likely to declare bankruptcy, then there were the articles how GM is one step closer to bankruptcy and now, finally, GM declares bankruptcy. All these articles were the same, apart from the headline, every one of those articles were published in a gazillion sources, none adding interesting commentary, and then all of it repeated because some European/local car maker depends on GM and needed to be sold. I've read one of those articles and I've read them all.
I think in that sense the "if it was on TV, it shouldn't be here"-thing is quite valid: You'll encounter it everywhere and there's no value in discussing it here, because it has been discussed to death already.
Now, I don't really like the metacommentary either, even though I'm participating in it, but I do think the article gets undue credit. It's not really that valuable.
Yes, this is momentous, but there's nothing new to be said about it, likely (prove me wrong, someone!). However, metacomments are interesting all the time, in the same way and for the same reason that people like talking about themselves.
I think in that sense the "if it was on TV, it shouldn't be here"-thing is quite valid
But "thing", you mean the sentence whose author just explicitly said it doesn't apply to this story? I guess not... I guess you mean your insistent misunderstanding of said sentence. sigh
The metacommentary is what shapes HN as a community. In that sense, at least, it has some value.
The article on the other hand: I've already read it a lot of times. First there were the articles that GM may declare bankruptcy, then there were the articles how GM is more likely to declare bankruptcy, then there were the articles how GM is one step closer to bankruptcy and now, finally, GM declares bankruptcy. All these articles were the same, apart from the headline, every one of those articles were published in a gazillion sources, none adding interesting commentary, and then all of it repeated because some European/local car maker depends on GM and needed to be sold. I've read one of those articles and I've read them all.
I think in that sense the "if it was on TV, it shouldn't be here"-thing is quite valid: You'll encounter it everywhere and there's no value in discussing it here, because it has been discussed to death already.
Now, I don't really like the metacommentary either, even though I'm participating in it, but I do think the article gets undue credit. It's not really that valuable.