Educating people about the media and fighting to make changes in the short-term, not just in the long term, became of utmost importance. Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.
This from an interview on a site called Socialist Project. (h/t: Daily Caller). Groups like FP rely on shill hysteronics to describe our news environment. In their Issues section, they state "the number of newspapers with Washington bureaus has dropped by more than 50 percent since 1985, and half the states no longer have a newspaper reporter covering Congress.", but, why should I care about newspapers, when their readership is declining, yet TV and internet consumption is increasing? On another page they bemoan consolidation. But, frankly, why should I care when Pew reports that "some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day. Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day." Not to mention, that they're referring to "giants". Very little of my typical daily news consumption comes from the giants.
Ironically, although FP complains about consolidation-- their solution is subsidies and government funding. How much more consolidated does it get though, than the same people exercising political power being the primary ones to exercise speech. Free, indeed.
