1) HN commenters are smarter than many journalists

2) No journalist can be an expert on everything, but there's probably an expert on the subject somewhere on HN

3) HN is an echo chamber and the choir likes when people preach to it

4) Article represents one opinion, discussion represents dozens

I read HN comments as a filter. If I am interested by the article's title, I go to HN comments. There, I sense if the article is useful and/or interesting. For this purpose I like TL;DR and quotes of the article in the comments. Also compliments and reassurances that the article is indeed good.

A the other hand, good critics showing that the article might contain fallacies, is superfitial, is clcikbaity, etc. make me lose interest.

Even when I am pretty sure I will enjoy an article only by the title and source, I open the article in one tab and the HN comments at another (so I can read the article, but also what the comments might add to it too).

Original post ~= processed junk food looking like vegetables.

Comments ~= raw vegetables looking like junk food.

I think they provide multiple sides to a story. A single blog post could just be a guy ranting, or a news story may simply be unfounded hype. It's like reading something written by 10 different people, all of different viewpoints, and which provides a bit more balance to a story.

Comments are reliably short, easily digestible and may contain a tasty disgreement.

The article, by contrast may require some effort to parse.

I do it because, I am more interested in knowing what 'others' think of the article, also I want to know how many people are thinking the same like I am. Not to mention to gain from other's perspective.

Multiple viewpoints are infinitely more interesting than a single viewpoint. I rely on comments so much that I cannot finish an article without immediately looking for a comments link (most of the time to no avail).

> Why is it more fun to read the comments than the article?

Because so many articles represent finished thoughts or positions that have been hammered into shape by prior discussion, as a result of which they tend to be rather bland and predigested. But the comments tend to be original, daring, unexpected.

Here's an example. A blogger posts a famous anecdote in which Napoleon Bonaparte visits a field hospital to thank a loyal officer for his service in a battle during which the officer lost an arm. The officer, utterly devoted to Napoleon, says he would gladly lose his other arm in Napoleon's service -- and to prove his devotion, he cuts off his other arm.

In the comments section, the first question is, "Wait ... how did he cut off his other arm?"

More perspectives.

My experience of HN has varied and my perception of what goes on here is still evolving. But I think a lot of people read the article and do not comment (but may upvote). And I think that different people interact with the site differently. I know I am a statistical outlier for the site on many fronts and I know from previous surveys and discussions that I fundamentally interact with the site differently than the reported "norm." I also am pretty confident that we simply have no real data that could be used to answer this kind of question with real confidence.