Chessplayer is right.
Nobody, including the reporter, is saying the MOH recipient didn't deserve the honor. The question is whether the official citation was embellished or not, and if so, why.
Attacking the media on this — especially since a reporter was there at the time and has firsthand knowledge of at least some of the incident — is not the answer. We have the First Amendment for a reason, and the key part of that reason is to have a check and balance on government. A reporter's job is to report the facts, and it's possible to test whether the report is in agreement with the facts. Facts are stubborn things, and we will likely find out very soon what the facts are in this case.
I remember at the time that Marine involved called himself the farthest thing from a hero, but said he was accepting on behalf of his fellow troops to recognize their accomplishments. That comment stuck with me, and indicated either an extreme amount of modesty (quite possible, given the circumstances) or that there were facts that hadn't yet come out.
For better or for worse, we likely will now find out much more about this MOH recipient and the incident than we ever expected to know. In the long run, getting facts verified or refuted is not a bad thing.
The fact that it came from an unnamed reporter/media is what makes the headline suspicious.