The root problem is that that there isn't enough specific new information to slow down the discussion and make it substantial. Lacking that, people recycle the generic points. Meanwhile the story is a dramatic one, so the energy to discuss it is high. That's a double whammy: lots of energy driving the gears, but no grist to slow them down. This produces reams of commodity comments. I'm sure the story being at #1 amplifies the effect, too, so it's a triple whammy. But it doesn't make sense for the story not to be there.

When the sensational-to-informational ratio is so large, we always get this.