On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality [1]. Most major sites produce a lot of bad articles and a few good ones. Because we're trying to optimize for intellectual curiosity [2], it's important to let the good ones through while weeding out the bad ones (or at least try to). It's also increasingly the case that certain classes of article are limited to certain classes of publication—because each publication excludes what doesn't match its ideological coloring. This isn't a great development—it would be better to have more neutral sources—but that's increasingly where we find ourselves. Since intellectual curiosity is (almost by definition) not primarily an ideological emotion, it follows that we should try to stay open regardless of the coloring of the source. That doesn't mean trusting it, of course—only considering it.
One of the criteria we apply in cases like this, especially when it's a major ongoing topic like this one, is whether the article contains significant new information [3]. That's generally a better lens to look at these things through.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...