I have absolutely no idea what the facts of this case are - BUT - to your point, an author's motive to "enhance" his reporting a very simple: It makes for a more interesting story. A more interesting story gets more views, more people talk about it, and it enhances the (perceived) reputation of the reporter.

Also, as much as it pains me to say it, there's precedence for this sort of thing. Simply put: reporters make shit up from time to time.

Again, however, I have absolutely no idea who's right/wrong here and won't make a single assumption until the facts are out.