Not condoning the decision: however, as a former journalist/editor, I think the effort was to highlight the contrast between the popularity of their work, and i

Not condoning the decision: however, as a former journalist/editor, I think the effort was to highlight the contrast between the popularity of their work, and its humble origins. It's a somewhat common approach in the journalistic community and was probably intended to make the Oakleys more relate-able. That clearly misfired with some readers, so I think that means it wasn't an effective use of detail. Still, I don't think the author was actively trying to be a dick about it.