I'll assume that you just read the headline, since the article basically posits exactly the opposite of what you claim. Your claim would make sense, but what we find in the wild is that outrageously bad behavior is ignored or explained away when the actor is sufficiently rich or successful.
I read it. It's ridiculous handwringing that assumes a moral stance and ignores any fact that contravenes that stance in pursuit of a banal point. I didn't see any reason to give something rooted in dishonesty an honest appraisal.
