I think you may be missing the forest for the trees by focussing on a single word as the cause for 'sctb's comment. He specifically mentions that comments shoul

I think you may be missing the forest for the trees by focussing on a single word as the cause for 'sctb's comment. He specifically mentions that comments should be civil and substantive. That phrase is often used to describe the goals for discussion on HN, and they're both important. The comment 'sctb responds to has very little substance, adding little to the conversation other than castigating its parent for assuming that people (journalists in particular) ever strive to do anything other than follow their basest instincts, that all journalists only seek attention. You add some nuance ("this type of journalist") which is entirely lacking in the original. The phrasing is also aggressive and does not invite further civil and substantive responses—hallmarks of comments that are not appropriate for HN.