The key assumption in this article is that 2-4 people control public speech, and that this is a unique situation, requiring unique responses.
While the control issue may be true (I personally don't think so), it's not at all unique. The 3 TV networks had the same or greater control over what speech and news got presented from say 1950 to 1995. By 2000, something like 10 US cities had more than 1 daily paper. Just a few media conglomerates control TV, radio and what's left of newspapers now.
The situation isn't unique from the small number of people in control. What's different is who gets to talk. From my standpoint, more voices and more diverse voices are being heard, not just rural or suburban white folks. And that's what eats authors of articles like this. It's not that only a few people are in charge,it's that the wrong people are in charge.
While the control issue may be true (I personally don't think so), it's not at all unique. The 3 TV networks had the same or greater control over what speech and news got presented from say 1950 to 1995. By 2000, something like 10 US cities had more than 1 daily paper. Just a few media conglomerates control TV, radio and what's left of newspapers now.
The situation isn't unique from the small number of people in control. What's different is who gets to talk. From my standpoint, more voices and more diverse voices are being heard, not just rural or suburban white folks. And that's what eats authors of articles like this. It's not that only a few people are in charge,it's that the wrong people are in charge.