Sure, but the point is that the Guardian doesn't have the same sort of right-wing-outrage-machine reputation that the Telegraph has, so (1) the tone of the article might be less annoying to those of a leftier bent, and (2) someone inclined to expect that the Telegraph would be outright dishonest on this subject might trust the Guardian more (even if it's citing the Telegraph as a source, one might hope that they've done some fact-checking).
HN's guidelines specifically ask people to "Please submit the original source*. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's true that the provenance of an article sometimes leads to complaints, but I don't think we should let that be the high-order bit or train for it (in the way that repeated moderation decisions slowly train the community). This is one of those cases where knowing what you're optimizing for shows which side of a tradeoff to opt for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
(* when it's publicly available - that's an implicit bit)
For the avoidance of doubt, I wasn't at all suggesting that the original submission should have been to the Guardian article rather than the Telegraph one, and I don't think anyone else was either. I was just trying to explain why someone might have bothered to mention the Guardian article in response to a complaint about the Telegraph allegedly being a right-wing outrage machine.
