That's how they get you. The story matches a meme that you're already annoyed about, and so you believe it because it's just barely plausible. If you look at the comments on that link I included, you'll see that nearly everyone who believed the story continues to believe that there is a kernel of truth to it and continues to argue against that supposed kernel of truth, rather than realizing, as the update clearly says, that there is actually no kernel of truth behind the story.
The lesson here is that a lot of the stuff that we read about how unreasonable people are is actually made up. There's usually a real event behind it, because that's what makes the story plausible, but if you actually listen to both sides of whatever debate occurred, you'll realize that they have reasons for thinking as they do, and while they might not be reasons you agree with, they aren't insubstantial. And of course you'll also realize that the story that inflamed you in the first place didn't even represent a vague outline of what actually transpired between the parties.
The thing that pisses me off about this is that it's not journalism, and yet the people who do this kind of reporting are free to call themselves journalists and claim all the trappings of journalism. If they claim to be journalists and publish crap like this, we should be able to sue them for damages.