You're still dismissing the actual context of these comments and projecting your own read-between-the-lines ambiguous alternative universe in its place. I don'

You're still dismissing the actual context of these comments and projecting your own read-between-the-lines ambiguous alternative universe in its place. I don't think it could be much more clear that this guy thinks that media coverage has "been" (and I quote him saying "been" because he's talking in the past tense) 1) sub-par, trivialised entertainment rather than thought-provoking information 2) needs to be something better in the future. The author of this email writes books about policy and how to improve it! He's particularly interested in improving cultural and civic life. We can see quite clearly the context of his comments, and the broader context of who he is and why he's engaging in this dialog. Or we could ignore all that and whip up a bizzarely contextless fantasy constructed around misreading the word "we" and ignoring pretty much everything else. Oh wait, I just said "we" in the previous sentence yet I don't mean myself - gee, how about that? Worse still, I think you're actually guilty of the very problem he laments. Rather than having a dialog around politics of careful debate and fair analysis, we (again this "we" does not include me) are content to dismiss the facts, stir up fake controversy and peddle conspiracy theories and other attention-grabbing but ultimately misleading soundbites.