Is S. Dhammika's book The Broken Buddha, a misleading angry reaction?

I cannot cast judgment on the whole book, but let's test a small excerpt.

Fourthly. Discouragement of Superstition. Pure Buddhism has today become overgrown with a mass of superstitions which the Buddha himself would be the first to discourage and which prevents its progress as people become more educated. The waste of money on innumerable candles, gold leaf, building pagodas, etc. is particularly deplorable when it could be much more wisely and humanely spent. Some Bhikkhus actually encourage superstition among ignorant people, teaching for example, if gold is put on a pagoda the giver will become rich, .... So many false customs, traditions and beliefs are now associated with Buddhism that the educated layman naturally laughs at them, and our religion is likely to make poor progress in the West until we can get rid of all these excrescences and show it to be the rational religion that it really is. The better education of the Sangha would be one of the best ways of achieving this.
The Broken Buddha (by Ven. S. Dhammika), pages 75-76

Is it misleading, poorly researched and baseless?

I don't think so.

Evidences of Theravada institution-sanctioned superstitious practices are well recorded, for e.g. below, from this news article:

This leads to the highlight of the (Wesak) day - chanting and blessings by monks and ending the short session (which lasts no more than 5 minutes) with a shower of "holy water".

The monks softly chants a Thai variety of the Ti-Ratana Vandana (homage to the Triple Gem), five precepts and punnanumodana (sharing of merits). For most however, these chants are exotic and spiritual, and are perceived to have "supra mundane" powers. It is no wonder then that many devotees place their personal belongings - amulets, religious icons and even car keys - onto a tray held by the monk who performs the chanting.

Their belief - mistaken or otherwise - is that these chants contain "spiritual powers" which are then transcended into their items, which when worn or used, protects them from harm or danger. The ceremony ends with the tying of yellow coloured strings on the wrist, a symbolic notion of the presence of the Sangha in the laity. Of course, if one wishes, they can also make a donation to the monk concerned for his service by putting money into a metal box.

Even Ven. Ajahn Brahm, of the Thai Forest Tradition, has openly admitted to monk-sanctioned superstitious practices in this YouTube video talk.

Does this look angry? No.

In fact, the following statement shows that Ven. S. Dhammika feels Buddhism is "our" religion, says that the bad image portrayed does not reflect the truth, and is proposing how its image can be improved.

.... our religion is likely to make poor progress in the West until we can get rid of all these excrescences and show it to be the rational religion that it really is. The better education of the Sangha would be one of the best ways of achieving this.

So, is it better to smear him and his book, or is it better to solve the real problems that may exist?

I think you should be careful about generalising.

My impression of the book is that it was mostly based on his own, first-hand experience -- "I saw and heard a monk say such-and-such".

If it is first-hand experience, and his experience as a monk, then how can it be called "poorly researched"?

It reminds me of suttas, which begin, "Thus I heard."

But generalisations are difficult. Consider for example the first sentence which ruben2020 quotes above, "Buddhism has today become overgrown with a mass of superstitions". I can easily imagine someone resisting that conclusion, and replying, "That's not true! The Vinaya is unchanged..." and so on.

Incidentally I searched the two texts you cited for the words "baseless" and "misleading" and didn't find them. The word "researched" appears in the first:

At less than 80 pages, it is somewhere between long essay and short book, and is at turns angry, funny, cutting, astounding, and, unfortunately, sometimes poorly researched.

You ask, "is it poorly researched" when the exact quote is, "sometimes poorly researched" -- I think that's a big difference, i.e. the first ("it is poorly researched") implies that the whole of it is "baseless", and the second ("it is poorly sometimes researched") implies that more could be added on certain topics.

In summary it seems to me that Ven. Dhammika made some personal observations -- and from these he generalized somewhat -- and I'm not sure why, perhaps he was wondering whether other monks might make similar conclusions, have any similar "views".

Your quote ends with,

For some, Bhante Dhammika’s casual relationship with facts and tendency toward generalization may limit their ability to take the thrust of his arguments seriously.

... and I think that's what I'm saying, i.e. that it's the "generalization" if any that makes it questionable, or perhaps not easily "actionable" or something like that.

Incidentally I think that American law -- I don't know if you're interested, but I am because law tries to define which might be difficult to define -- distinguishes between "opinion" and "false statement of fact". For example if someone said, "I think you're an idiot" then that's an opinion, and if someone said "I saw you stealing" then that's a statement of fact (which may be true or false). I'm not aware of Ven. Dhammika's making any false statement of fact; it's possible you may disagree with some of his opinions. It's been years since I read it but from what I remember he narrates (or "is transparent about") experiences on which he based or from which he formed his opinions.

I admit that some sceptics might prefer data based on more than only one person's experience.

I found what he wrote interesting -- whether or not I share ("agree with") his opinion, I liked being able to share some of his experience -- to "see though his eyes".

As for "angry" I don't remember that. Perhaps that means it evoked no anger in me: that I didn't read it as angry. I read it more as "disappointed" sometimes, perhaps "sad", "disillusioned" even -- and worried, that the Vinaya isn't being practiced properly and so people don't benefit as they otherwise might. I also saw it as looking for leadership and/or suggesting direction -- "This is right, that is wrong, we should not behave like that".

Incidentally I think that part of the genius of the suttas is their making generalisation which are true -- which isn't easy, and may be a science. Usually though when someone makes a generalisation you might be able to say, "That isn't always true" But maybe personal experiences are "true", "This is what I saw", and leave people better informed, i.e. with a more complete, more factual, more detailed picture for what that's worth.