The posts were obvious duplicates, so we did the routine thing and demoted all but one of them. It's true that we didn't merge the threads (which we've recently begun doing in many such cases), but IIRC that's because most of the discussion in the other threads at that point was about why they weren't the Buzzfeed story. Did I get that wrong? If so, it was for the mundane reason that at 1 A.M. I was tired and less meticulous than I try to be.
By "seems destined, etc." I meant that many people here obviously cared about the story. "Media controversy" doesn't strike me as absurd at all, but let's not quarrel over wording; let's seek each other's meaning instead.
FWIW, my personal opinion is that, assuming the story is accurately reported, it's outrageous. But it's our duty to try to factor personal opinions out of moderation decisions.
You seem to be complaining that HN's front page isn't decided by votes alone. It never has been; it has always been a blend of voting and curation. Voting alone would cause HN to be dominated by outrage, gossip, fashion and promotion. That would kill the site. [1]
I dislike that fact as much as any HN user, and probably have more reason to dislike it. But there's no question that it's true. It's so true that it's an interesting question why it's true, given that this is a community of smart people, and I even have a whole theory about it... but I'll spare you.
1. I'm just echoing what tptacek already said in this thread, as well as regurgitating what I've posted dozens of times, but it does seem necessary to regurgitate.