Then why isn’t the article framed that way? Why is it 60% ethics in journalism and 30% “Springer’s been a naughty boy”?

As Goethe wrote: So fühlt man Absicht, und man ist verstimmt.

I particularly liked when they needlessly pointed out that Döpfner (who is not Reichelt) "also owns one of Germany’s leading collections of female nude paintings". He owns such a collection, but if it's really a "leading" one is rather debatable... he owns around 350 paintings total, most of the showing nude people (according to himself, in 2019).

But why is this factoid even thrown into the article? For the added raunchyness alone to spice up the article, or to imply Döpfner is a bit pervy himself and maybe even wants to protect the pervy Bild editor Reichelt, who had sex with coworkers?

While I personally loathe Alex Springer, especially Bild, and then especially Reichelt, this article is really so void of fact that I can only conclude it's a deliberate hitpiece. Lots of handwaving, lots of unproven allegations, hearsay and insinuations. Bild and Reichelt, true hitpiece-afficionados, would love it... if it wasn't about them :P

Looks like the writer was an ex politico writer. Maybe he got sacked after the buyout and has an ax to grind