Context: in the 2010s, Wells Fargo management looked the other way while its sales force scammed customers, creating millions of fraudulent accounts (with associated fees) to meet performance targets and quotas [1]. The Fed imposed an asset cap as punishment in 2018, and as of today, the asset cap remains in place.
This isn't any context on the article - it may be context on Wells Fargo as a company, but you may want to specify that it is context on the company and not the article
That's appealing to emotion and outrage about something unrelated that happens to involve one of the parties, which is an organization made up of over 100,000 people. There could be bad food in their cafeteria as well, but it wouldn't make sense to invoke that here either.
Providing objective, accurate, relevant contextual information that reasonably makes people outraged is not in itself an appeal to emotion and outrage.
The information is relevant to how we view Wells Fargo as an ethical entity. Bad food in the cafeteria would not be relevant.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Fargo_cross-selling_scan...