Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of shallow, hasty dismissal of someone else's work is just the kind of comment we're hoping to convince people to pause before posting here—and then not post. Would you please not do this in the future? It's easy to convert this kind of bad comment into a good one: instead of acting like you know someone's work better than they do, post your points as respectful questions. The odds are that a hasty internet…
(I’m only responding because Dan getting involved in the conversation is equivalent to the bouncer at the bar putting his hand on your shoulder). My target was inappropriate. The snark should have been directed at the author of the submarine PR advertisement, not the marketing executive. I believe articles like this, which are barely more than corporate press releases, are more damaging to the community than the loos…
The trouble with what you've said here is that even if you're right about the article, it's easy to make your points without doing damage to HN. It simply takes a will to do it and a willingness to wait a little, to make it past the reflexive phase where the snark enzymes kick in.
That aside, there's another problem with your argument: if it's right, it's too right, because the same observation applies to nearly all media pieces. This sucks, but it is a cost of doing business on the internet (probably literally). If we focus on these annoyances, we only deprive ourselves of curious discussion. I'd say the guideline to apply here is the following one, translated to the article level:
Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
In other words, please respond to the most interesting things in an article, not less interesting things that are easier to criticize. If there are no interesting things, that's different, but then you should flag the submission.