The previous article seemed to be as objective as the reporter could make it, describing his personal sense of guilt but also the people around him who tried to

The previous article seemed to be as objective as the reporter could make it, describing his personal sense of guilt but also the people around him who tried to convince him it wasn't entirely his fault. He did allude to the family problems that the restaurant owner was going through, and that they contributed to the failure of the restaurant. He probably felt that airing those problems publicly would merely do more damage to the business he felt responsible for damaging in the first place. This new article says the original author didn't know about the legal entanglement so that could have used vetting. This all seems to be related but separate to the main question from the original article: how responsible are food critics to the businesses they write about? Even if the business would eventually fail on its own, is accelerating the downfall an ethical wrong? This is the interesting part of the conversation that should be examined with these articles