Certainly it's the details that matter, and I agree "any" may be an exaggeration depending on the distance. However, when Fermi saw evidence of a possible GRB at exactly the same time as the first GW detection it was dismissed as a coincidence by most, as even with accretion disks involved the theoretical expected amount of EM energy emitted by a black hole merger was orders of magnitude too small to have triggered the apparent GRB detection, which would have needed a significant amount of the collision energy to be radiated in the EM spectrum. So the theory was felt to be stronger than the apparent observation in that case. If we have evidence this time of a significant amount of energy being emitted in the EM spectrum but the masses turn out to be too large not to be black holes according to standard theory then that would again suggest that something is wrong with the standard theory, which is always interesting. It would be interesting to know why this is being described as a binary neutron star merger; is this because the initial analysis of the GW signal shows relatively light masses (in which case it seems surprising that anything was detected at all) or because the SGRB and other EM emissions suggest that it wasn't a black hole, regardless of the masses?