In the context your banking system is in, this attitude makes perfect sense to me. But bigger picture, it is weird.
Note that this is an attitude where the banks are essentially assumed not to be at risk of bankruptcy. Maybe this means the depositor views the banks as a utility - access to the system whereby debts are settled and trade occurs.
This is completely at odds with what the banks actually do day-to-day, which is make judgments about which businesses and families have a chance to thrive. They execute this through their decisions on who to loan to, and how much.
There is an enormous tension here - the capitalist mechanism to encourage good performance of the banks day-to-day duties is losses and hence bankruptcy if they really muck up. A voting consumer who wants 'reliable IT' and 'Tech Support' isn't going to tolerate that in the design of the system.
I don't have any money in the American banking system, so I can be harsh. The world is full of threats and risk; if people can ignore what is been done with their money then the financial abstractions and safety nets are too extreme. It isn't reasonable for a depositor to be completely, purposefully ignorant of what is being done with their money. They should acknowledge and carry some (relatively small amount) of the risk, and have an actual relationship with their banker.
I miss the old-world personal relation with the banking manager that a reasonably wealthy individual could enjoy. I think it would create stronger local communities.
EDIT obviously depositors with account sizes in the <$10,000 sort of range should be able to ignore the whole financial thing, they don't really have enough money to be interesting. But serious amounts of money should feel some of the risk. Someone with, eg, a $50,000 bond should be able to ask probing questions.