Their MeToo stuff was full of this, reporting that like somebody had two dates that were rude and uncomfortable, said something that an underling interpreted as hostile, and oh yeah sexually assaulted someone else
There's lots of reporting in the story that is serious and disturbing if true—what's the point of throwing in an anecdote that you acknowledge is bogus? The paper has some bizarre institutional belief that throwing weak stuff on top of strong stuff make the story stronger.
