Sure. And I don't object to a few articles with a lot of meat. But what I don't need is every pundit's reaction, to see every breaking story about which company cooperated and which did not, followed by a story summarizing the tally, followed by two reactions to the summary from two more pundits, followed by a guy who has a bone to pick with one of them, followed by a new revelation about a fifteenth company, ...
The guidelines clearly make an exception for new, interesting stories that have wide-reaching consequences. I agree and am glad that I found out here about the major abuses, the amendment and the more recent bill. That's four stories of real value. What the guidelines do not make an exception for is the kind of fine-toothed-combing and navel-lint-cataloguing that is going on surrounding these issues. Stories with titles like "People don't care about these stories anymore" are great examples of what isn't a new and interesting phenomenon.
I definitely grant that some of this is desired. I think you and others should grant that some of it is not desired.
The guidelines clearly make an exception for new, interesting stories that have wide-reaching consequences. I agree and am glad that I found out here about the major abuses, the amendment and the more recent bill. That's four stories of real value. What the guidelines do not make an exception for is the kind of fine-toothed-combing and navel-lint-cataloguing that is going on surrounding these issues. Stories with titles like "People don't care about these stories anymore" are great examples of what isn't a new and interesting phenomenon.
I definitely grant that some of this is desired. I think you and others should grant that some of it is not desired.