I deleted my comment because I didn't think the reasoning would remain the same given the misconception I was operating under. However, after further consideration, (and actually listening to the podcast Bret this whole discussion is based around,) I believe I stand by most of what I said. (I kinda wish I saved it somewhere so I could edit it now)

However, the central problem is not that Matt himself was in a position of authority relative to the public, but that he was ostensibly acting in an official position on behalf of an organization with such authority. The focus of the blame is more on the company than it would be if he were a reporter as I thought, but there still needs to be some disincentive for this behavior.