The competence of journalists writing about science aside, it seemed that the idea that the universe was uniquely suitable for life has even been grudgingly accepted by naturalists, who attempt to employ the "anthropological principle" to ward off the notion that such is evidence of God. The idea is something like: only universes which are ideal for producing observers will be so ideally suited to produce observers.
I was kinda skipping ahead to where I thought the conversation logically lead.
I can not let is pass that I view the anthropological argument as logically fallacious (I am happy to argue why I think this with those who disagree). But certainly its common use demonstrates that the journalist is far from alone in his assessment that this universe is well suited for life...even among those who have a stake in not acknowledging such a conclusion.
People who throw around statements like "The universe is perfectly suited for life" are simply not being careful with their words...and making a host of conclusions they're in no position to make.