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.
