Nope. We don't live in the Middle Ages, once there is proof that some entity is playing dirty, it is doomed, forever. We have the press, social media, etc. we don't need to do the test on our own behalf. It is how the real world works.
Trust the press? In this day and age? When the number of page impressions are clearly prioritised over maintaining even the slightest semblance of journalistic integrity and the articles generally appear to give the impression that the given publication is merely a mouthpiece for the vested interests of whichever billionaire owns it? It's likely that very few people become genuinely informed of anything by absorbing modern media content. As such, I think I'll stick to form and say that this is yet another one of your ideas I won't be lending my support to.
My point: A full node keeps its own user from being defrauded (and become the example of a victim for the press) not bitcoin as a whole. Pools are not afraid of full nodes, they are afraid of losing funds because of the obvious social penalties like price falling near zero as a consequence of any misdemeanour.
Pools don't have to be "afraid" of nodes, they just have to know unquestioningly that should they choose to mine a block which the full nodes won't validate, they'll be forked off the network and mining a worthless chain. Blocks are either valid or invalid. Binary outcome. That's what full nodes keep in check, which prevents certain types of misdemeanour. Not hashrate attacks, though. For the purposes of the OP, I'd say it's likely you are correct in the assertion that it's mainly game theory keeping that part in check. But that shouldn't in any way be interpreted to mean we don't still need a healthy node-count.