I expected no less, my friend. Allow me to explain this from an Anglican's perspective.
As I have said before, many in the Episcopal church were, and are, sheltered from much if not all of this. They focus on their immediate parish, the people they see every Sunday, considering even that other Episcopal parish across town to be so different for just the minutest reasons. For many, things further outside don't impinge much.
Kolokotronis, I am not making this up, I am not proposing a hypothesis -- I am speaking from personal experience. For about 28 years of my life as a cradle Episcopalian I was unaware of any real problem. In restrospect it is obvious but at the time it was not, and the little shudders and shakes that went through the grand ship called Mother Church were explained to us and life went on, albeit slightly differently every time.
In such an environment, awareness comes slowly if there is no one defining revelation. And remember, there are those trying to keep awareness from the rest. Thus we have Anglobabble and the avoidance of speaking straight through the issues. I strongly suspect you will not find those in the Global South, for example.
So when she says "here’s the truth of it, straight away", she's pushing off the blinders. And so is he.
I think too that another part of the problem you mention is that a different, or looser, definition of "communion" has crept into the church -- perhaps pushed by those above, part of all what's keeping the blinders on, and many of these people haven't realized it. Yet.
Add that to the fact that being in (or wanting to) the world-wide Anglican Communion is just almost innate to Anglicans. To this cradle Episcopalian, leaving it was a very hard thing to do and it was years before I came to acceptance of the situation (but always, always, and always still, with hope that it will end someday).
But awareness is now growing rapidly. Somebody posted today that David Virtue says ECUSA is down to 800,000 membership, something like 1/5 what it was years ago. (Just yesterday, an Episcopal priest asked me if we'd been having any visitors from his church because there has been attrition -- I suspect he may not be far behind himself.)
Have patience, my friend, and watch.
I certainly understand what you are saying and believe what you have said to be true. Think about the implications of your comments. Episcopalians have been content to focus on the goings on of their own parish with little or no concern for the very different goings on, I assume either theological or liturgical, in the parish across town. To an Orthodox person, this is astonishing. We are and always have been intensely aware of the the goings on in the wider Church. Even in the ancient Church, every chrismated Christian felt an intense obligation to be informed of The Faith and to defend orthodoxy of both The Faith and its praxis everywhere. There are famous stories of travelers bringing back to the seat of a bishop or metropolitan or even patriarch stories of some heterodox practice having developed somewhere. With surprising speed given the times and the difficulties of communication, the local hierarch would be informed and the heterodox opinion or practice supressed. Of course, at other times heresy took root and it took decades to root it out, but that was usually on account of a heretical emperor supporting the heresy. Condemnation of the heresy, the proclamation of Anathema, was almost instantaneous. +Mark of Ephesus' efforts to overthrow the False Union of Florence in 1453 took almost no time at all, despite the fact that the Eastern hierarchy, except St. Mark, had accepted the same as had the Imperial government. +Mark rallied the lower clergy and the people, who took up the cry "Better the Sultan's turban than the Pope's mitre" and that, in short order, was that.
Orthodoxy has preserved The Faith precisely because we all, clergy, hierarchy and laity, serve as an orthodox theological and liturgical check on each other. I suppose we could be accused of being a Church composed of Torquemadas, but maybe that's a justifiable appellation. I've seen lower clergy and laity condemn an Archbishop, an Ethnarc, as un-Orthodox to his face in a diocesan council; within a few months, the Archbishop was gone, finished as an Orthodox hierarch though his support had been both broad and deep...and wrong. Neither the laity, nor the clergy nor his fellow hierarchs would remain in communion with him. His "superior", a Patriarch, faced the same threat had he not acted.
Is it possible that the insular nature of Episcopalian parishes is rooted in those compromises the Anglican Church made early in its history to accomodate heterodox belief and practice in the interests of political peace in England? If so, like virtually all the other compromises churches or ecclesial assemblies have made with the world, it has come back to bite ECUSA.
I think I might have mentioned somewhere along the way that in the early 1900s Orthodoxy and Anglicanism were very close and there was talk of a union of the two. Without much thought, Bishop St. Raphael of Brooklyn, the Orthodox hierarch in America at the time, issued an order allowing Orthodox people, in certain limited circumstances, to be ministered to by Episcopal priests. Apparently the Bishop was informed that his order was being either misrepresented or misinterpreted by Episcopal priests. In response he carefully reviewed Anglican theology, something apparently he hadn't done before and issued a new order reversing the first and resigning from the Anglican/Orthodox Union which had been established with an eye to uniting the Churches. His letter revoking the previous order is a good example of how Orthodoxy deals with heterodoxy. Here's a link:
http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/raphael_hawaweeny_episcopal_relations.htm