Rant: Free Publicity For An Abusive Chef?

A local chef is planning on opening a new restaurant in the Boston+ area and a number of news outlets have written about it. However, this chef, and the upper management team at his current restaurants, have previously faced numerous accusations, by their employees, of sexual harassment and abuse because of race, gender and sexual orientation. 

Is it wrong for those news outlets to discuss the planned new restaurant without also referencing the previous accusations? 

It's important to note that neither the chef nor any of his team have been convicted of any of these accusations. However, the magnitude of the number of accusers is troubling, with complaints apparently extending back at least to 2016. As far as I'm aware, none of these employees have gone forward with lawsuits or made criminal reports. Why is that so? Are such employees still reluctant to step forward, maybe fearful of retribution or of not being believed? Are these employees unaware of all their possible legal options? 

Although a few minor news articles have mentioned the accusations, no outlet has done an extensive, in-depth investigatory article about these issues. Why is that so? Do these outlets lack the resources to conduct a proper investigation? Do the allegedly aggrieved employees mistrust news outlets to protect their anonymity if requested? Are news outlets wary of writing such investigatory articles, unwilling to confront local restaurants and chefs? 

There are so many unanswered questions which should be confronted and examined. 

We can say with a surety that any news outlet writing about the chef's new restaurant is essentially giving free publicity to it, basically encouraging their readers to visit the new restaurant when it opens. It can also be viewed as the news outlet taking a side in this controversy, choosing to ignore all of the negative accusations that have been made. Those news outlets have faced some criticism for their stance, and will probably continue to face criticism as well. 

Some might allege these news outlets are only being neutral in the matter, reporting just the facts. However, that's definitely not the case, as they are being very selective in which facts they report, thus adding an element of bias to their reporting. As an extreme example, for illustrative purposes, one could simply report that a restaurant had a health code violation. However, beyond that neutral fact, maybe that violation led to 25 people sustaining significant food poisoning. Obviously, the selective choice of which facts to report affects how a news story is viewed, and that can be a serious problem. 

It would seem that if you're giving free publicity to a new restaurant, you might want to provide the public all of the relevant facts about that restaurant. The good and the bad. The omission of important information can easily be seen as an indication of bias, which such news outlets claim they are trying to avoid. You might think you're being neutral, but omitting key elements of a story is just a type of bias.