The essay being referenced was on HN's front a couple weeks ago (610 upvotes, 391 comments): <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18469658" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18469658</a><p>Backgrounding -- and finding something problematic on someone who you've profiled and liked is definitely one of the least fun things I've done as a reporter. Regardless of the merit of the person's claims/denials, it must genuinely suck to have talked to a reporter for what was initially intended to be a positive recognition (e.g. "proud local owner of 'Best Burger Bar in America'". Only to find out that your previously private legal problems -- i.e. known only to your personal network -- are going to be mentioned in the mass media. Even if the mention is minimal -- i.e. doesn't change the main focus of the story -- the subject of the story might wish they had never been picked as a story idea.<p>That said, when you fail to mention a glaring problem at all -- well, it's not the crime, it's the coverup. I would've understood if the original author had found out about the legal problems and decided not to write a followup at all. I can believe that he wasn't truly aware of how serious the burger bar owner's legal history is, and didn't want to pry if it was the kind of crime that didn't make normal headlines. But when you write a self-indulgent graf like this --<p>> <i>And that fact is the thing I can’t quite get past. That a decision I made for a list I put on the internet has impacted a family business and forever altered its future. That I have changed family dynamics and relationships. And it could very easily happen again.</i><p>-- you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've done a thorough vetting. It's true that owner that owners of well-reviewed establishments are thrown into a world of stress -- this has been true since the "golden age " of newspapers and print critics. But for someone to have suddenly and inexplicably shut down, it's also possible there's more to the story than what the owner would like to publicly claim.
> Stanich and his wife divorced, citing "irreconcilable differences," in 2016. He agreed to give her a family home in Tempe, Ariz., $400,000 in a lump sum and $8,000 a month in support payments—and custody of the family dog, Rambo.<p>a house, 400k, 8k every month, and the dog. Jesus.
The Probation / Parole system, and the "correctional" institution in the US is a national disaster. The idea to prevent an adult, an elderly adult at that, from engaging in lawful activities like drinking alcohol as terms of probation is ludicrous. This man's life spiraled out of control for one reason.. the punitive nature of law enforcement and correctional institutions. What should be regarded as a health condition and treated as such (alcoholism) is instead used as a tool to further humiliate and demoralize this individual. It's not even safe to cold-turkey quit alcohol for an alcoholic because of the possibility of Grand Mal Seizures.
Clear case of Betteridge's Law: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...</a>