There you go, a perfect example of how (willfully) getting the details wrong can change the tone of a story.
I often buy The Independent, but I've noticed a number of quite churlish, and one of the reasons I like it is that it avoids trashy celeb orientated stories, but I've noticed a number of (willfully) inaccurate stories about Andy lately, although they mainly seem to be in the online version. I'm not sure if they are going for cheap hits with lower journalistic quality for the online paper, or if this is some kind of shift. I only really notice the ones about Andy, so I'm not sure if this is part of a trend that covers others in the public eye.
I think the problem is that they have an approach of avoiding the trashy celeb stories, yet they know these are the stories that bring in the hits that keep the advertisers happy. To get around it, they fabricate an angle that suggests they are doing some proper journalism, but is anything but. They complain about Andy getting unfair attention compared with his non-celeb peers, thus getting all of the advantage of a celebrity name, while apparently not pandering to celebrity. It's just a shame they didn't take the opportunity to address the balance by writing an article about the other hotels that won prizes that don't have famous owners.
I do believe that you have to take the rough with the smooth, and while a lot of what has been said is not just unfair, but mean, it's just one of those things. The business has had a lot of free publicity thanks to Andy's name too. The main shame is that the business gets the benefit of the free publicity, while it's usually Andy and his personal reputation that takes the hit. On that note, the tourist industry in the area as a whole benefits from the extensive international publicity that comes by association. It's a small hotel, so there will be times when it's full, but people who have read about it decide to say nearby instead. A lot of local B&Bs will benefit from tourists who want to visit the restaurant and stay nearby etc.