I don't necessarily agree. I think a lot of writers probably read it in full and had a sense of its nuance, flaws, and intentions, and still elected to push the

I don't necessarily agree. I think a lot of writers probably read it in full and had a sense of its nuance, flaws, and intentions, and still elected to push the juicy and possibly inaccurate headline for their own, and their publications' own gain. I think we're just at the point where thinkpieces criticizing the initial wave of thinkpieces are now vogue and profitable. (FWIW, I believe the wave of misleading or negative coverage of this memo is partly the fault of its means of original publication and distribution. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the way in which unorthodox viewpoints are offered to the public can dictate how they're received and interpreted, and this was not "groomed" to be received well, regardless of the merit of its arguments or lack thereof.)