Here we have a headline that for once is exquisitely accurate: the article is more about lunch than it is about Sean Parker.
While I don't particularly care what they had for lunch, I felt that a lot of the conversations around what they were eating actually acted as rather a good insight into Parker's personality, so it wasn't a complete waste of text.
I found it really excruciating to read this article. I realize that there's a sort of formula for telling a story in news magazines (and I appreciate that it is an art form), but it drives me crazy when the story is more about the interview circumstances and less about ... anything, really.
... Then I realized something that I've found unique about Hacker News over the last several years: The submitter added the bit about "how he's coping with his new reputation". So I can neither fault FT for writing a story, nor can I fault the submitter for finding something about the story that I'd find interesting (to the contrary, I greatly appreciate the service).
Perhaps it's a new startup idea (or an old one done in many different ways [newser or even wikipedia]) ... the point in more than 200 characters and less than 4 paragraphs. Bonus if it includes customization to the reader's interests.
EDIT: phrasing.
So, I will click a post that says "Sean Parker's drooling habits" little because of what surrounds it - I will click it because have strong interest in finding out more about the noun, Sean Parker, without caring much at all about the totality of the title.
The more I know about the noun, the less I click on the titles (especially as they parse down to less interesting things), but the less I know, the more likely I am to click something as snore-inducing as "Lunch with Sean Parker".
It's a strange argument, though, to say that criticism must be less valid because they do this every week.
As a regular FT reader I actually enjoy them, including the descriptions about lunch.