It's worse than that, I think. It's that toxic, abusive, dysfunctional mix of people working on the shows who love Star Trek, higher-ups who don't, or don't get it, or both, and a bunch of regular folks just happy to have work stuck in between and bewildered at the reaction the show that they think is just fine is getting.
I think there's two key problems.
PROBLEM ONE, there is a cyclical issues that has more to do with what studios think fans want based upon misinformed market testing, and looking at the ratings/box office numbers of similar properties. I don't think there's any agendas. I think there is an incorrect notion of what people want to see.
I remember the last days of Prime Trek. Enterprise was lackluster, and Nemesis felt like a misfiring collage of great Trek moments we'd already seen trying to recapture some glory. We look back at the Prime-verse as one thing. But the Trek of the early 2000s was a lot more tired from Trek of the early 90s... or Trek of the late 80s for that matter. Even as a huge fan, I was getting bored.
Then Battlestar Galactica comes out and more or less breaks the space opera genre by being grounded, frim and dark. It was Ron Moore doing everything he was told not to do on DS9. I personally loved BSG, and it gelt more socially relevant and poignant. Trek had forgotten how to be relevant by then. BSG kinda killed it.
The response for Trek was then, was to go dark for seven years then come back with a reboot. They recognized how Trek had gotten stale, so theyt decided to lean in hard on the swashbuckling adventure aspect of TOS, forgetting social relevance part. It did well, I enjoyed it-- but then they made horrible sequels and drove any good intentions they had away. In the mean time, Star Wars came back for the space adventure.
Meanwhile, all other scifi on TV and in movies had spent the last decade being influenced by BSG. You can't look at The Expanse and not see the influence of BSG. Dark Matter was.. dark. Stargate got grittier. Dr. Who came along, and despite doing its own thing can still go dark. Westworld, The 100, Lost In Space... all of them on the dark side, or at the very least, presenting space as a dark and dangerous place.
Then, when Bryan Fuller comes along and pitches a Trek prequel, he wants to keep it true to Prime/TOS. Everything we see them going toward now with Pike's Enterprise-- Fuller wanted thsat from the start. And the studio looked at the landscape of all other scifi out there and thought-- "No way. This isn't what people want." And they base that purely on what is being made. The IP had floundered on the big screen with JJs last entry, they plain and simple didn't want to take a risk. They wanted to play it safe. And safe meant doing a dark and gritty space show.
And I am here for dark and gritty space-- I love it... but not with Trek. That's not what Trek is. Fuller bounced because of this. And who replaces him-- Alex Kurtzman.
Kurtzman was quoted saying his problem with Star Trek was that it "never gave him a good Star Wars moment." Whatever the hell that means, it's clearly, and bluntly, obvious that the guy overseeing all thingsd Trek does not get Trek at its core. That's PROBLEM TWO. He's doing tyhe hiring. And even if writers are hired who love Trek, his core edict and direction is what it is, and it trickles down to everyone on staff.
The Picard writer's room, was apparently one of the most contentious, back-stabby, angry rooms in TV history, and guess what-- it shows.
All I can hope is that if they pause and look at the response to STP they'll see that everyone loves thge pilot, coiming back to Picard, and we love it when Seven shows up, or when they visit Will/Deanna... it's clear they just should have done a 24th century revival show. If Picard's crew had been made up of TNG, DS9, and VOY people, and a few new people so it wasn't a cast of OLDS (which studios are also afraid of) people would have been a whole lot happier.