One of the challenges of communication is that it's always easier to agitate/communicate/call to action with messages from the edge - things are black and white or good and bad. One person or company is a hero, the other is a villain. Today's NYT (in the guise of writing about politics) illustrates that point and reminds that in the coming U.S. political maelstrom it's good to remember what we agree on as much as what we disagree on (for an interesting experiment, pick a quiet moment with someone on the opposite political spectrum as you and see what middle ground looks like on gun control, taxes, etc., other "wedge" issues. My experience is that even people who are pretty far apart can agree substantially on some middle ground).
I'm reminded of this anytime I'm involved in an announcement or piece of news with nuance, especially when the news is timely (read: POST NOW). In these cases, people covering the news are fighting to find ways to shorthand the news and capture it quickly for the original story -- which in many cases means boiling the shades of gray to either black or white (a reporter told me once that the readers wanted "simple" stories; something I disagree with, especially if "simple" means without depth). Heck, I can work to frame something in the most binary way possible at times (my client is good, everyone else is bad is one example), and that is a pretty easy task. Telling the story of gray is much harder.