Robers & credibility

I haven't read Roberts's book (obviously, since it's not out), but I'm watching her on the MLB Network with Bob Costas.  Roberts is resting a lot on her personal credibility as a journalist.

The problem with that is her poor work on the Duke lacrosse case. She wrote a lot of things that turned out to be flat-out wrong.  See, for example, the following link:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2008/03/selena-roberts-still-misleading.html

(For those who don't know, KC Johnson, who runs Durham in Wonderland, was writing about inconsistencies and problems in the Duke case before the case fell apart.)

I'd love for someone to ask her how she can rest on her credibility when she was so wrong in the Duke case. Is she just following a media storm and piling on someone who has fallen out of favor - like she did in the Duke case?

I'll add that I don't trust Rodriguez in all this either. He's obviously lied about this in the past, and God knows if he's telling the truth now. But a lot of the accusations in her book seems to be based on (1) the idea that Alex got much bigger in high school; and (2) a lot of anonymous sources. Shouldn't we have more before we condemn a man? Shouldn't we have had more in the Duke case? Is anyone going to ask Roberts about this?