I'm confused by your point. Are you suggesting that we should assume everything we read is true until we have 'more facts' or 'additional insight'?
The reason her story was denounced by a few people is because those people had not let their ability to think critically be clouded by the current NSA/Snowden frenzy.
I think the point was that while skepticism is good, assuming the worst of someone is bad. It's not good to default to belief, but defaulting to abusive disbelief is also a problem. I think it is good to point out what we don't know and ask questions, but not to accuse someone of being a malicious liar. Give them the benefit of the doubt that they at least mean well, even if they are probably mistaken.
