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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...
This is an excellent defense. Having a $4.5 million dollar wedding may be jerky, but better he spend the money than hoard it; unemployment is high. Sounds like a badly maintained and forgotten site is going to end up improved due to a billionaire's urge to create a magical fairy garden for a day.
Hope this gets upvoted enough to salvage people's views on this incident.
The "hoarding" argument has no economic basis. Money that is saved in stocks, bonds, or bank accounts is immediately put to use by companies, banks, or governments.
> Money that is saved in stocks, bonds, or bank accounts is immediately put to use by companies, banks, or governments.
Oh is it? really?
In the real world (not the fantasy land of trickle-down economics), money that is saved in stocks, bonds and bank accounts is NOT immediately put to use by companies, banks or governments.
Banks have done a terrible job putting the money given to them by the government and the Federal Reserve to work. Small business lending dried up and has taken years to recover, despite all the efforts to convince banks to do otherwise.
The government did a notoriously bad job of putting the stimulus spending money to work.
As for businesses, hiring has been slow, wages stagnant and investment weak for years, despite an excess of cash (profits).
Almost nothing has been done to stimulate demand, much has been done to stimulate supply.
So, arguments about "hoarding" have not only economic basis, they have a basis in fact as well.
Granted, on those grounds, Sean Parker should be lauded for putting some of his money to work.
This is Say's Law, and was believed throughout the 19th century until being vigorously challenged by Keynes in his "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money". The "General" in the title specifically refers to the fact that the theory goes beyond the "special" conditions in which Say's Law holds. There are still believers in Say's Law but the mainstream economic position is that it is false in general.
No, it certainly is not. Loans create deposits when creditworthy borrowers show up and ask for them, and required reserves are obtained afterwards from the cheapest source available.
It doesn't have to be my business for me to think it's jerky. I'm sure I think things that you're doing in the privacy of your own home, that I will never hear about, are jerky, and vice-versa. Luckily, if it becomes public information, I don't have to ask your permission to either have, or express those feelings.
Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, just the same as I'm entitled to have an acerbic reaction to your value judgement of how people should use their money.
There's nothing wrong with judging people based on how they spend their money. There are admirable ways of spending money (such as Parker's "conservation buying") and less admirable ways of spending money. Spend your money as you want, but your spending shows your values.
The interesting thing in this case is that Parker himself admits it: "Finally, you mention that what we did was
'extravagant' yet none of the usual tasteless crap that rich people do at their weddings was present here — no ice sculptures, no caviar, no pop stars hired to sing their hits songs, etc. This is why your article and so many other articles have been so deeply offensive."
The reason people would find spending $4.5 million on ice sculptures (for example) offensive or tasteless is that a huge amount of human time and effort would be expended on something completely temporary, with nothing to show for it. The opportunity cost is that all that effort could have been spent on something with lasting value. Parker's spending is therefore equally tasteless.
I should say that I am not judging Parker here. A wedding is a big deal, the amount of money we are talking about here is not all that huge, and Parker seems to have some consciousness about his spending. I am, though, defending the right of others to judge Parker. Mild social criticism---not tar-and-feathering---for extravagant spending, and social praise for positive spending, is good for society as a whole.
Can you define 'completely temporary?' A chef paid to create a once in a life time meal for something like this is honing their craft. An Ice Sculptor is probably creating their masterwork. The biologists he used may have never had a chance to work on conserving an area this large.
An architect builds houses that the wind will erode away over the next 500 years.
How permanent does something need to be to make the creation of it worthwhile?
> All that effort could have been spent on something with lasting value.
How much of the money we spend day-to-day actually fits this criteria?
I buy food that I pass a day later, I watch TV that benefits nobody, and I type on a keyboard to make software, that, while valued by others, isn't exactly art or anything (like the bridge in Sean Parker's wedding, it is useful for a time, and will eventually be discarded when it is no longer wanted).
And I bet his guests drove on public roads to get there. Some of them may have even have had public educations!
Taking advantage of government services available to everyone does not preclude one from expecting the usual degree of privacy and respect we accord to our fellow citizens.
I think it was actually private land, which was simply made accessible to the public under certain conditions. Parker's position is that the campground was temporarily closed anyway, and that his wedding did not deny anybody access who would otherwise have had it.
According to what Sean Parker wrote, it's somewhat inaccurate to call it a $4.5 million wedding:
"I will say, against my better instinct to tell you, that we
spent roughly $4.5 million on prepping the site and big part of
that was restoring the forest floor (I should say, covering the
forest floor with plants) since it had been paved over in black
asphalt or cleared by bulldozers before we ever laid eyes on the
campground."
Taking what he wrote at face value, perhaps $3M or more of that remains behind as an improvement to the forest itself. If he spent that $4.5M renovating a dilapidated church and then had a potluck wedding where he spent nothing, would that still be a $4.5M wedding given that all the value accrues to the church itself?
Anyone who's ever gotten married will tell you that weddings are very expensive. $4.5MM is a couple of orders of magnitude above average, but not out of line - what else should they spend their money on if not a declaration of their mutual love?
Snort! My wedding cost less than $100 US. (Now if we had "fuck you money" like the individual in the article, my wife could have possibly spent 6 figures on the honeymoon instead of road tripping and budgeting.)
Two of the most expensive weddings, ($200K+), I've been invite to or a groomsman in, both ended in divorce within 2 years.
More accurately, we can admit we are a large community, and that like most large communities, intra-community fads, gossip, and celebrities are a frequent subject of conversation within the community.
After living many years without a TV or cell phone, and in a part of the world with almost no advertising, I personally believe every industry is a fashion industry.
It would not be the first case where a environment related government agency went overboard when the end result for the area was better than what the same agency had been ignoring for years or simply did not know about. Read more than one wetlands issue where this occurred.
I wonder if that hn poster who thought Parker was lucky we don't have the death penalty for his horrific crime against nature will be around to post on this thread.
We can't let this end without someone getting the noose. I nominate the hack journalist/blogger making the accusations in the first place. Failing that, we can hang the guy that asked for the death penalty. A little poetic justice would go a long way to making online discussions civil again. :)
The author quoted the CCC's report and at first this seems enough. Why would anyone be upset that someone else, specially someone "known" to love the redwoods be upset that he/she spent so much money "fixing" the place for all of us? Idk, this all just seems like drama now.
Wish he spent more time on meaningful work instead of retorting inflammatory web postings.
He could have done two things in far shorter time.
1) Debunked the original article
2) Used the space to evangelize to others (while echoing the original article's author's views).
Too many words for HN over any private wedding. If I wanted ceremony, I'd be writing STL.
