No, but refraining from taking an action that's well within your power to take, possibly with minimal consequences, and which you have a strong incentive to take, is sign of integrity. I don't know if that's "getting credit", but having integrity is clearly a good thing.

On the other hand, it could simply be shrewd businessmanship. It's not like it was the reporting that made Theranos unviable. The tech would never work, it's just a question of time before the walls come crashing down. It's probably illegal for Murdoch to sit on this information while trying to sell his investment on to someone else (at the very least, inviting some nasty lawsuits).

Murdoch might very well have thought "Oh well, the investment is gone, I'll be damned if it isn't my newspaper to be the one to break this juicy news".

Murdoch had a short term incentive but a very large long term disincentive. If he tried to suppress this story he would have gotten caught because FDA and Walgreens care about facts. Not to mention that the story itself would drive readership.

Looks to me that Murdoch acted exactly according to his long term goals.

Look at all the people I have not murdered today. Yes yesterday was a bit of a bad day with that school and everything but I should get some credit for today.

It's almost like the nice guy thing. My times I respected women stamp card is almost full!