6 ms·

Is asking the subject of an article for comment before ripping them to shreds just a lost art at this point?

by _pius 13y ago

marcloney 13y ago
Welcome to the wild west, where we blog first and confirm later.
Alex3917 13y ago
In this case you could tell the original article was BS so it's kind of irrelevant. The only 'evidence' against him was a list of permits he hadn't applied for, there was no mention of anything that was actually damaged. (Except for the picture of the tree that supposedly 'looked unhappy' or whatever for being in the middle of a rock wall.)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - gmu3 13y ago
    Because he is a philanthropist.
- mcphilip 13y ago
  The report [1] the original article was based on listed accusations which don't make the incident sound nearly as trivial (i.e. BS) as you are claiming: >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.pdf http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/6/F5.1-s-6-2013... [2] Violation Description #1 from above report.
  - pdubs 13y ago
    There was the pretty major point made that Parker could not have legally applied for permits on this land, since it's privately owned land owned by the hotel that was hosting his wedding; the hotel should have.
rm999 13y ago
I agree it was bad form of the author, but in all fairness the original piece was a very casual editorial and not serious reporting. In objective reporting the standard is to cover all sides of a story, but in editorials it's to spout off your opinion - often with little regard for the truth. 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 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.
- mtowle 13y ago
  "In all fairness" my ass. It's only a man's name.
- grimtrigger 13y ago
  but in all fairness the original piece was a very casual editorial and not serious reporting Seems like a cop out. Forget journalistic integrity, what about human integrity? If you're going to hold up someone and say "this guy did something wrong!" then you should have your facts straight. If you don't want to be taken seriously, the first line of your article should be "I didn't bother to check all the facts". 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.
- gdubs 13y ago
  The original piece may have been a 'very casual editorial' but that didn't stop readers from tearing apart Parker in response (both here and all over twitter). I was very disappointed when I read the original piece and assumed that its presence in The Atlantic meant it had credibility. Even more disappointed that it appears they didn't even fact-check with him before publishing...
gojomo 13y ago
Compared to researching fully before reporting, The Atlantic is going to get way more than twice as much traffic for what they actually did. 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.

Is asking the subject of an article for comment before ripping them to shreds just a lost art at this point?

by _pius 13y ago

Is asking the subject of an article for comment before ripping them to shreds just a lost art at this point?

marcloney 13y ago

Welcome to the wild west, where we blog first and confirm later.

Alex3917 13y ago

In this case you could tell the original article was BS so it's kind of irrelevant. The only 'evidence' against him was a list of permits he hadn't applied for, there was no mention of anything that was actually damaged. (Except for the picture of the tree that supposedly 'looked unhappy' or whatever for being in the middle of a rock wall.)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- gmu3 13y ago
  Because he is a philanthropist.
mcphilip 13y ago
The report [1] the original article was based on listed accusations which don't make the incident sound nearly as trivial (i.e. BS) as you are claiming: >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.pdf http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2013/6/F5.1-s-6-2013... [2] Violation Description #1 from above report.
- pdubs 13y ago
  There was the pretty major point made that Parker could not have legally applied for permits on this land, since it's privately owned land owned by the hotel that was hosting his wedding; the hotel should have.

rm999 13y ago

I agree it was bad form of the author, but in all fairness the original piece was a very casual editorial and not serious reporting. In objective reporting the standard is to cover all sides of a story, but in editorials it's to spout off your opinion - often with little regard for the truth. 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 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.

mtowle 13y ago
"In all fairness" my ass. It's only a man's name.
grimtrigger 13y ago
but in all fairness the original piece was a very casual editorial and not serious reporting Seems like a cop out. Forget journalistic integrity, what about human integrity? If you're going to hold up someone and say "this guy did something wrong!" then you should have your facts straight. If you don't want to be taken seriously, the first line of your article should be "I didn't bother to check all the facts". 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.
gdubs 13y ago
The original piece may have been a 'very casual editorial' but that didn't stop readers from tearing apart Parker in response (both here and all over twitter). I was very disappointed when I read the original piece and assumed that its presence in The Atlantic meant it had credibility. Even more disappointed that it appears they didn't even fact-check with him before publishing...

gojomo 13y ago

Compared to researching fully before reporting, The Atlantic is going to get way more than twice as much traffic for what they actually did. 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.