Saint or Sinner?

There has recently been some criticism of David Attenborough in relation to his natural history programmes (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/07/david-attenborough-world-environment-bbc-films). The charge is essentially that he 'does not tell it how it is' preferring to present images of a pristine world with lots of animal and plant wonders (in deed, he has gone on record as saying that too much concentration on the environmental challenges facing life on the planet is 'a turn off'). It is really difficult to strike a balance on this one as Attenborough appears to be one of the few individuals who can front natural history programmes that appear relatively frequently and are viewed by a substantial audience (sometimes leading to intense media attention as in the case of effects of marine plastics on wildlife). I seem to also remember that he had the bravery to suggest that limiting human population growth was a worthwhile undertaking if one really wanted to save the planet. There is no doubt that the films with which he is associated tend to give a somewhat 'Disneyfied' view of the real state of nature but, without him, I suspect there would be much less natural history on the BBC. Perhaps, as in the case of many prominent figures, the truth is that  they have their good points but you can't expect them to be flawless?