Strongly disagree. The media are for laypeople. You wouldn't appreciate complex breakdowns about how proteins in SARS-CoV-2 work, too much depth.
I also disagree with the implication that a SWIFT ban is meaningless.
SWIFT is a notification of intent to settle. Modern banking (read: the electronic age) moves MUCH faster than money does. You can see this in ForEx. By the time the money arrives, it's worth something else. This is risk exposure and is partly why most banks like to backout into their native currency. Not always the case, but still a useful line.
Banks exist to provide 2 major services.
1: Trust. Doesn't matter what so-and-so claims, their bank are the ultimate gate keepers. If the bank says it's paid, that's a legally guaranteed promise.
2: Liquidity: You actually need to have money to be able to send it. Banks will let you use "their" money while your money is still actually arriving (settlement).
As you rightly pointed out: Banks make this money available to you before it actually arrives. The only way they can do that is because of #1: They trust the settlement will happen.
If there's no trust, there's no releasing of funds. If there's no SWIFT message, there's no incoming settlement. TARGET2 can be used without SWIFT, but good luck finding a lot of banks that will handle CIPS in place of SWIFT.
But by FLATLY removing Russia from SWIFT, they have successfully killed transactions in BOTH directions. Money can't come in, money can't go out.
There are arguments to be made about the efficacy of these decisions (nobody believes the vast majority of Russians voted for Putin, right? Cuz they certainly did not so pressuring them to once again not vote for Putin seems pretty stupid, but the west can't do literally nothing. Difficult problem) but this was an effective move to further crush the ruble.