I thought that rule was for interpreting comments to keep civil discussion. Identifying possible interpretations of what is in an article and the biases it may either imply, be sourced from, or create in others seems a worthwhile topic to discuss about an article, though care must be taken to distinguish from 'could imply' and 'does imply'.

One such use of this is when someone posts an article they have some control over, knowing how the title biases or primes a reader can be very informative if they need to make a change because of an unintended effect, given the chance of communities entirely disconnected from hacker news viewing and possibly discussing the article.