[quote=@Buddha]
[@Keyguyperson] fuck u buddy

[@mdk] it's linked to politics, it's basically explaining the chronology of monarchy -> republic with representation or monarchies with representation (to a lesser degree) where the bourgeois began forming a public sphere (where private people come together in a public body to discuss matters related to politics) and how it progressed from there. The media was a nr. 1 tool for them more or less like the French political journals and stuff.

The author then argues that there was a change in modern society where that's no longer the case, or beginning to decrease, due to media being increasingly focused on crime and entertainment and how there is no longer a platform for politics unless it generates revenue. 

Now I'm unsure where the change comes in
[/quote]

You should be able to get free school points by relating (read: force-fitting) the article into a "twitter age" conversation. 

A, that last argument is just recency bias, so it's bullcrap. But B, it's irrelevant anyway because media is no longer the primary means of understanding current events. Instantaneous communication has supplanted it. The zeitgeist IS the story, but it's also how we hear/share/interact with the story.