What he is describing here in my opinion is just good journalism. An editor could write this about any government; hell, he could write it about his own office.
The discussion here should focus on the “why”–why did they keep pressing? What in their Trust Principles or in the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics made them push? Also, where were the holes in the first set of data? That is, what was in that data that said to them, “There’s still something missing.”