The wedding wasn't where the stories said it was (private land not a public park), there were no endangered species that were put at risk, and only one reporter out of 100 stories that ran bothered to call them for comment, so it's a bit more than that.

But, as one comment said, if that story were printed on paper it would have needed a redwood to make the sheets. Probably longer than it needed to be.

Also, "almost none of the journalists bothered to ask us for comment". That was the one part that surprised me; I would have expected better.

I'm sure that if they had all called for comment he would have been outraged that people couldn't leave him alone on his honeymoon.

That's a typical smear tactic. Raise a hypothetical as a certainty that is impossible to disprove, but makes the person look terrible.

The proof lies with the people making the extraordinary claims. Reporters could have easily waited to get all of the facts and if that means waiting to their are back from their honeymoon, so be it. Why give a pass to incompetent reporters?

Try: the wedding had essentially no ecological impact.