That is a truly shocking piece of journalism.
There are questions to be answered alright but that idiot reporter is not the man for the job.
He seems to have decided that this is a heroes versus villains story (with him getting to decide which are which) and doesn't allow any latitude for any other possibility.
Certainly flying without fuel for an alternate is very odd. It being legal is even odder. That IMHO is what 15 of the 16 minutes should have been about.
Nonsense such as 'would you take off without a full tank of fuel?' and 'no one knew where to look because the pilot didn't issue a mayday' demonstrate the agenda clearly.
In addition he never examines the weather the Captain relied upon. He never examines how much fuel was taken versus the flight time. We are left to rely on an Air Traffic Controller's view of fuel load which is poor at best and the word of some retired guy who said he would never take off without a full tank of fuel. Is he really a pilot?
This is why most pilots never trust journalists.