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...
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.