Joking aside, there is a lot of speculation going on: motives, who knew what and when, why, and so on. I just hope people recognize the difference between (a)

Joking aside, there is a lot of speculation going on: motives, who knew what and when, why, and so on. I just hope people recognize the difference between (a) what actually happened (much of which is unclear) and (b) what the press coverage says. I don't have any particularly special insight, but it seems to me that (b) tends to make it look like more of a circus than the known evidence would suggest. (Sure, there is some probability that it is _more_ of cluster than most media coverage recognizes, but I view such a probability as small. For me, the key question is, "What does the evidence reasonably suggest?" not (intentional hyperbole) "Oh My Dawkins, it is a dumpster fire, no worse! ... there is an actual internal civil war happening...") Please let me know if I'm missing something. The dozen-ish articles I've read pretty much make me bemoan humanity's state of information dissemination and journalistic standards.