Okay, let me straighten some things up:
One, shame on Behind the Thrills for amplifying that writer's platform, and two, do people not understand how websites work?
Here's the skinny: all websites (including us) look at metrics to see what our audience is interested in. If they like a certain feature, column or way we do things, we try to do more of it. That's not to say we cater our content to fit every single request or trend that works, but it does mean we're conscience of what sticks and what doesn't with our general audience. With that in mind, we also try to cater to our audience within the confines of our ethics, values and beliefs. Not all websites do this, but we do, and we think highly enough of our readers to assume that they're not interested in controversy, clickbait or any other misleading content. Many websites err on the site of sensationalism, and in an age where websites derive most of their profit from page views and impressions, it's understandable why. After all, they need to keep the lights on.
But more importantly, websites want to shape discussions and mold the conversation (again, including us). As evidenced by my Twitter feed, this writer from Vice was quite successful in achieving that goal. Whether or not that attention is good is one thing, but the fact of the matter is this: he's shaping the discussion, and he's making
you (and me) talk. If you don't agree with his agenda or style, don't read his article, and certainly don't spread his articles around the web. If you know that writer has a history of inflammatory content, why visit his columns again?
Again, writers and websites want to shape the discussion and garner attention. If you don't like what he does and you wish for him to stop, stop talking about his work and stop sharing and visiting his article.
Say what you want about his opinions on Knott's, but he's laughing to the bank, and the theme park community is simply amplifying his voice and increasing his revenue. The worst thing he could ever imagine is if no one cares.