Lots of things get written by little people trying to take the air out of famous/talented people. It's pretty easy - "They're just human!", "They technically didn't do everything alone!"
Nothing to see here.
But the confirmed lies that he chose to spread, with the bumbling help of his mentor (who clearly has personal commitments to the community the lies are most meant to appeal to), are beyond excusable.
There's nothing to hand-wave here. It's the nakedly cynical, anti-social effort of an egotistical con man. It should be shamed off the air, the movie should be shamed out of production and their names should live on in infamy as pathetic liars. Richard Montanez and Al Cary, the pathetic liars who think you're all chumps.
To do anything else is to contribute to the degradation of vital social fabric.
And although you skirted the obvious implication by referencing his story as that not of a "big" man or even a great one but, instead, "famous" or "talented", indicating that you sympathize with the simplistic great man theory of history.
Dissecting others' comments is a low-traction form of commenting. I like to stick to saying what I think.
And yes, this man is self-admittedly a regular guy who accomplished something impressive through daring and courage.
If you actually study it, the discipline of marketing is actually about things like (1) the rigorous search for product-market fit, many decades before this was popular with tech startups, (2) finding ways to efficiently target and inform audiences about goods and services which absolutely add value to their lives, and which can often be extremely challenging (e.g. everyone hates thinking about death, but life insurance can be ridiculously important for your dependents), (3) developing clear, stable, predictable anchors at a company level, which people can trust and build mental shorthand for, at longer timeframes - we all have expectations for what Apple products are "about", for example. These are all absolutely vital market functions.