You're right. I wish NY Times were slightly above this practice, of including a polarizing celebrity with no relation to the story as if he is either A. an auth

You're right. I wish NY Times were slightly above this practice, of including a polarizing celebrity with no relation to the story as if he is either A. an authority, or B. an actor in the narrative. This attracts both the audience who thinks Bill Gates' work is humanitarian, and those who think he is doing this for selfish (money/power/influence) reasons. It seems his only connection, from what I can tell, is proximity and endorsement, which are irrelevant, and only tangential to the story, which is already scant.