Personally, I don't think so, but let us at least try to be consistent.

"If an unpopular person's corporation C succeeded at activity X, it is the success of the regular employees and everyone but him, but if his another corporation D failed at activity Y, it is solely his responsibility and shame (if not a proof of outright fraud)" is a classical emotionally charged double standard.

Like it or not he founded (sometimes in-part) but drove these companies to success by demanding deliverables others thought were crazy.