Certainly, a given anecdote might be right or wrong. The thing that seems to follow here, however, is an implied claim that because of the falsity of a given (singular?) data point, somehow the overall narrative becomes unsustainable. However, this means that the claimed truthfulness of the counterpoint is used to support a completely opposing narrative without any further backing. This is, in a round-about way, an appeal to authority that then seemingly provides a complete alternative to a given narrative, seemingly without the need to substantiate the wider claims in their entirety.
The falsity of a given (prominent!) data point just puts the care and diligence of the author into question and plants doubt in the reader's mind. It doesn't imply the validity of an opposing narrative.
Not the way I read it. She said there were a lot of errors, and gave one example.
No one who was there is necessarily reliable. Absent a time machine, no narrative is going to be right on all facts.
Perhaps the critic is is self-serving. But perhaps if the author gave competing versions instead of using the device of an nonexistent omniscient narrator, that would be more defensible.
Maybe, as you say, all narratives are fictional, but some are more fictional than others. Serious historians and journalists don't go out of their way to make the narrative more dramatic at the expense of accuracy.
