This comment from the article puts it very well.
comment from article posted:
Question: What makes this news relevant? The Captain was on his break; believe it or not, flying a plane is exhausting, and as a result, the flight crew are not only entitled, but are required to take regular breaks. In the case of long distance flights, such as South America to Europe, they even go back and can have a sleep in the crew's sleeping quarters. During this time, a relief crew/Captain takes over where the original crew member(s) operated. Therefore, no matter what the Captain was doing on his break, there should have been a full flight crew on the deck, who are no different to the original crew. If you haven't figured it out yet, this is done as a precaution that in the event of an emergency, where the original crew is unavailable (due to toilet, fraternization, zipper accident, injury - in the emergency, or anything), the aircraft is in capable hands.
What I'm getting at, is that regardless of what the Captain was doing on his break, it has no bearing on the outcome of the accident, therefore, why does this reporter feel the need to sully the Captain's name and reputation - as well as the image of pilots around the world - with this useless piece of questionable information.