I'm not sure who the "we" is in the question. There are broadly two categories of people on this site, namely senior people (faculty) and junior people (postdocs and students).
A lot of questions here seem to be by students and post-docs who have problems with their advisors and P.I.s. Often these problems seem quite major. It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this, however, since the people writing this are after all self-selecting, and may not be representative. (After all, junior people relatively rarely write to talk about how wonderful their advisors are, and how well things are going.)
One hopes such questions are not representative, of course. In any case, it is possible one gets a worse than actual view of how bad academia is from more junior people.
On the other hand, I think perhaps the senior researchers have a better than average view of how good academia is. For at least a couple of reasons.
First. senior academics are people for who things, in general, have gone well much of the way. Maybe there has been some bad stuff, but not much. My observation has been that in academia, partly because it is quite stratified and hierarchical, that it can be difficult to recover from bad things. If you have a couple or more bad things happen, it can easily seriously jeopardise your chances of a good career. For the obvious reasons, because bad things makes the probability of more bad things in the future, and conversely good things happening make the probability of more good things happening in the future. Of course, this is true of life in general, but in academia, in my experience, it is particularly true. You are expected to be in a particular place at a particular time in your life, given certain educational attainments, and people are intolerant if you are not. In any case, people who have had a reasonably good time in a system tend to think the system works well, because it worked well for them.
Second, the senior people who post here are, sort of again by a process of self-selection, not your typical academic. Typical senior academics typically don't spend time on a question/answer site about academics. Virtually all senior academics I've known would have fainted dead away with surprise at the suggestion that they do so. For lack of a better word, I think the senior academics here are "nicer" than average. Therefore, I think there is a tendency for them to think the better of the academic world in which they reside. Basically, they tend to think other academic people are nice too. Maybe because the other academics they choose to associate with are also reasonable, functional, people? I know this is a bit speculative, but I think I have observed this phenomenon on this site.
I don't think that presenting a unrealistic or distorted view of academia is a good thing, of course, but I think some distortion in inevitable, if only for the reasons I mentioned.