Happened to read what seems to be the "first article" ... claimed to have the "facts" (in general some kind of reorganization) and that being terminated (sounds retirement due to job elimination) caused him to miss a key retention date that would have gotten him more retirement $. The problem his sources went uncited and the ramifications of "the date" were not explained. As ND apparently did not comment (actually never said he contacted anyone to get a comment) the narrative is lopsided and may not be factually correct.
Part of the reaction is pretty human which as noted makes the optics look bad. If I worked with someone for years who always provided me what I needed and that person was still able to do that ... would think the organization that wouldn't retain him should be featured in Dilbert. Might come across as regrettable but reasonable if "the facts" were known.
Aside: not too long ago the coordinator for some courses I was taking at a local community college had her job abolished in a massive restructuring of the department she worked for. Hopefully whatever ND is doing will work better ... turned out the job actually did need a full time person and today there is one but not her.
From an HR perspective ... the reaction of his media contacts should have been predictable. This why organizations have crisis managers ideally involved before decisions are made and announced (or not in this case it seems). Not sure there was a good way of handling this but the way choosen was for sure not it.