Any order was dismissed long ago.

 

The accusations were false, misleading and/or unsubstantiated – which is confirmed by the court’s dismissal of all of the restraining orders. Yet the article blatantly omits the fact that they were dismissed. Instead, the phrasing suggests they were still in place. Had this crucial fact been included it would have changed the whole thrust of the story; to leave that fact out was, to my mind, a grave journalistic sin. This is a correctable error.