Is asking the subject of an article for comment before ripping them to shreds just a lost art at this point?
The shoot-from-the-hip original story ensures far-and-wide forwarding – outrage brings da hits. Then, the separate followup/correction brings nearly as many hits again.
If there are incentives to do something, it'll be done... we just have to factor this in when interpreting forwarded-stories that tickle the sense of righteous indignation.
Other than wasting people's time and energy while they're in the middle, inaccurately-wound-up belief state, many people will only get the 1st story: outrage accelerates a story into more forums faster than calm correction. Also, not having seen both together makes it easier for prior biases to survive. ("Oh, the correction is just later coverup/spin, I still prefer the original moralizing narrative.")
So there's several big negative externalities, on the public's time and knowledge, arising from the way the current online news model works. HN is, unfortunately, part of the problem.
>Within the existing privately run public campground, unpermitted development including, but not limited to: grading; construction of multiple structures including a gateway and arch, an artificial pond, a stone bridge, multiple event platforms with elevated floors, rock walls, artificially created “ruins” of cottage and castle walls, multiple rock stairways, and a dance floor; and installation of over 125 potted trees, potted plants, event tents, port-a- potties, generators, lighting, and wedding facilities for guests. [2]
That being said, I agree that Sean Parker's defense should have been pursued before the original article was published.
[1][PDF link] http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/6/F5.1-s-6-2013...
[2] Violation Description #1 from above report.
My point is don't trust everything you read, always question the source and intention. A lot of us HNers were also guilty of passing on the blame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5824276
One more thing: we've now heard two sides of the story (an editorial covering the CCC report and Sean Parker). Keep in mind that we don't know what actually happened yet.
but in all fairness the original piece was a very casual editorial and not serious reporting
I agree that (as a community) we should be more skeptical of stuff posted online. But that doesn't excuse the author and its neither necessary nor wise to defend him/her.