Perhaps I'm wrong but I read your question as follows.
When I read the world news (about Buddhists), and when I read Buddhist web sites, I find disagreeable news:
- Gurus behaving badly, and doctrines from badly-behaved gurus being published
- Badly-behaved (violent) lay society (and military), and criminal monks
- Modern pseudo-Buddhist doctrines from non-gurus being published
When I complain, people tell me this is my "mind wandering". But what the hell, aren't I supposed to be thinking? Shouldn't we all be thinking?
For a start, I guess you're not wrong in your observations:
News is that there are or have been (some) gurus with scandalous, abusive, and/or controversial behaviour.
The behaviour and speech of specific monks, and communities of monks, has been (to put it politely) less than might be ideal; not to even mention war and ethnic cleansing etc.
There is a lot of not-explicitly-Buddhist "mindfulness" doctrine being taught, more or less well.
The fact that there is adhamma doesn't mean that dhamma is bad, though, and it does mean you might want to carefully distinguish between dhamma and adhamma.
For example, many people would consider the doctrines in the suttas to be "dhamma"; and it's expected that you need to be careful, for example from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:
The Four Great References
In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve.
MN 24 for example explains that "knowledge and vision of what is and is not the path" is one of the (several) stages of enlightenment.
I suspect (though it's difficult to describe well) there is a certain "non-thinking" quality to meditation.
If you consider physical/muscular effort, though, at least as an analogy, it's important (healthy) to have both exercise (contraction) and rest (relaxation), perhaps at different times ... or simultaneously.
Perhaps something similar is true of "thinking", i.e. it's good to do both (thinking and non-thinking).
I suppose that thinking isn't necessarily always supreme, always good. Instead thinking might be judged, according to (for example) whether it's skilful or wholesome.
I think that according to the suttas you might judge "thinking" on the basis of whether it is or isn't conducive to suffering. On that basis it's possible that the kinds of thoughts which you outlined in the OP might be unskillful -- because if you stay with those thoughts, they might cause you to suffer. Or it's possible that they're skilful: because clearly seeing that something is not dhamma may be necessary. In any case, I think it may be reasonable to try to control (e.g. to discard, not attach to) what you think about (including what kind of news you read), and what "views" you form, just as it's fair to "guard the senses" (guard what you see and hear).
I'm not sure but another way to judge or to assess, to weigh, something might be on the basis of whether it's conducive to the suffering of others. On that basis too the thoughts you outlined may or may not be skilful: I suspect that by themselves they don't help anyone, but maybe they could be an example of seeing the suffering of others in a way that helps you or leads you to alleviate their suffering.