OK. Well, that's told me then.
On the other hand, this is an interesting example of what an artist meant, versus how an audience interprets. In one sense, it doesn't matter what Garland meant to say. It's what the viewer took away from it that counts. That's something I've had to accept as a fiction writer myself. Intent is one thing, but in the end, the story belongs to those who read it, and I cannot stop them interpreting it any way they please.
Example: I wrote an animal fiction novel for my then seven-year old son, about wolves, purely because he was obsessed with wolves, and asked for one. It's a Watership Down-esque adventure story about a wolf pack in Alaska entitled Echo and the White Howl (it's on Amazon if you're interested). I self-published it, as it was purely meant as a gift for my son, and animal fiction really isn't my genre (an interesting challenge to write, but I won't be doing that again). But when I released it, various other people read and interpreted it, with one person insisting it was a Brexit allegory.
My point is this: I read Civil War as critical of the press. Yes, they are nominally decent people, and compelling characters we come to care about to a certain degree (much like Willard's companions on the boat in Apocalypse Now), but I don't think they are portrayed in an entirely flattering light, especially Lee and Jessie. Regardless of Garland's intent, I definitely felt the finale in particular, in which (spoiler alert) Jessie's ambitious actions lead to Lee's death, are not the glowing endorsement of journalism as check on polarisation that Garland claims. In fact, in real life, I'd argue the media (not just in America but everywhere) bear a hefty responsibility for stirring up right wing and left wing lunacy, depending on your propaganda poison of choice. In short, I didn't take that away from the film at all, regardless of Garland's intentions. The Jessie/Lee relationship was very All About Eve, and the addiction to the thrill of shooting photographs in potentially lethal situations is very The Hurt Locker. That seemed much more front and centre in the film than anything (to me, at least).
Perhaps Garland has failed after all, in that case. Perhaps he should have studied films like All the President's Men, if he wanted a film that paints journalists as a democratic check and balance.