So what? If you offered a reason for why this particular article was better, then your comment would have added value. Otherwise it seems like a poorly paid social media worker at the nytimes spamming here.
NYT is a perfectly legitimate source for HN and the commenter was being helpful by offering an alternate link. Please don't gum up the threads with off-topic kvetching about sites you dislike. Also, can you please not be a jerk in comments here?
If I were an agent for the NYT, why would I have submitted the press release vs. simply submitting the NYT article? Is there some SEO trick there?
I saw the NYT piece after I posted the press release.
A press release from a plaintiff announcing a lawsuit is, by its nature, one sided.
The NYT coverage is more balanced, including Brewster's response for example.
Based on how quick the press release jumped to the front page, I figured folks would be interested in the broader coverage.
Rather than making another submission, I added a note to this submission.
I thought the difference between a press release and news article was well known and did not need stating. I guess I assumed a level of information literacy that was not present in all readers, and should have said "and here is some popular reporting that gives a broader perspective than the press release I just posted above".
Based on the upvotes of my additional comment, I can only assume it added value for some readers.
