Obviously not being able to challenge, make amends, or explain the behaviours mentioned in the article is a strike against the timing, but I don’t think that was ever the point.
To me it almost feels like a bunch of stories cobbled together quickly after his death so that his legacy changes from just philanthropist and Sens saviour, to also include erratic tyrant, with questionable social justice decisions. I understand that it was a story that was underway for quite some time, but I’d this is all that came of over a year of investigative journalism then clearly this wasn’t a deep pool. Perhaps there was hope or an expectation that there would be more when the rug was pulled up?
In terms of an exposé it is extremely shallow, feeling like the stories were from people who didn’t want to officially share stories while he was alive, which is understandable.
I don’t know, it just feels like it was to temper the legacy rather than do a deep dive into a hidden realm of serious misdeed. In the end there is nothing else to gain beyond that if these are the types of stories available. All they have done is publicize that he could be quite the unpredictable asshole, and by the sounds of it there are more examples out there to prove the point.
The racist, and homophonic accusations are lacking on their own, at the moment anyways, which is likely why the article makes no claims to that effect. Without EM being alive we won’t likely ever understand his rationale behind the BLM and LGBTQ campaigns.
My take away is pretty much How Ian has characterized the man; a philanthropist and passionate Sens fan capable of great acts of kindness, along with unpredictable acts of bizarre tyranny. It doesn’t sound so far as though there is much more to take away than that.