> She came to the story with a predetermined framing of the story.
In that it was a simple report on the patient experience, rather than being a deep investigative piece? That doesn't seem egregious or necessarily biased in a particular direction (it could either be a positive or negative experience), and there is some push back against Theranos guiding the piece ("wouldn’t I just rather get a finger prick myself and report on the experience, as so many other journalists had agreed to do? [/] I said no.")
> She allowed herself to be bribed with the “treat” of talking to Elizabeth Holmes
How? She rejects the initial condition that Theranos try to impose (not talking to other sources), and the condition in the threat was something the journalist had already indicated was necessary (talking to an actual patient getting the finger prick) nor did she change course at that point in order to secure the interview with Holmes.
> She sat on the story
What story? "I tried to do an interview but there was a fire alarm" -- that's basically all there is without significantly more digging, which she may not have the time/resources/connections/organisational support to undertake. Even if you publish the angle that not many people seemed to be getting the finger prick test, Theranos will just rebut it with the "significantly more than 50 percent of the tests are done with a finger prick" line and that the journalist did not see a representative sample.
> She waited until well after the tide of public opinion had turned against Theranos to capitalize on the work of others who actually did the hard journalism to get clicks.
I agree that it seems to be something of a bandwagon, and almost to get some credit after the fact, and that framing it as "I always knew something was wrong" paints the decisions made at the time in a poor light. However, given what was known at the time, I don't think any outrageous decisions were made, particularly as this was written with the benefit of hindsight so not as many red flags may have been raised at the time. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that journalists do a deep dive on every company they cover, especially when writing a relatively simple piece. Would there have been merit in publishing the piece? Certainly, especially given what we now know, but I can also see how you would conclude there is nothing important/interesting you can conclusively say based on those events.