Journalists that could speak with people at length and confirm the story by further research still weren't willing to publish based on anonymous sources. This is in part because anonymous accusations can be a great tool in a defamation campaign.
Furthermore, publishing anonymous claims without due-diligence discredits future anonymous claims. It might even back arguments like "Those sexual harassment claims always turn out to be smear campaigns".
It is useful data that, unfortunately, too few of us are aware of, and are thus condemned to the same fate.
I am fundraising, and wish I knew which sleazy firms/investors to not waste my time with.
Some VCs are sleazy, but their money's still green. I know with certainty of at least two firms with predatory/creepy partners, but that wouldn't stop me from including them in a round.
This behaviour is inappropriate, but it's not nearly as bad as what we learn to fend off at the average final club/frat party.
VCs do not invest their own money. Instead they invest money of their limited partners.
If limited partners learn that their investments are used to fund VC's love life - they would be furious and likely to withdraw their money.
I hope you'd consider naming those firms/partners, for the benefit of others.