I guess my basic point is that the differences between a plutarch and an autarch are rhetorical at best. A government pushing its agenda is an autarch pulling the strings. A rich bastard who owns the media pushing his agenda is a plutarch pulling the strings. Either way, you have a large amount of public opinion being swayed by a single or very small number of people, for purely personal gain based reasons.
To me, this is ideologically incompatible with the concept of a free press, as it is outlined in the conception of the 4th estate.
The argument that "They are free to read or not read the script" is about as meaningful as:
[in maoist china]
the media is free to read or not read the Party's official statement
In the first case, the media loses its source of funding, and the anchor/journalist gets fired and blacklisted (because the big boss, eg, the owner, was directly gone against, eg-- insubbordination, an act that normally results in instant termination in most industries.), meaning there is defacto coercion to hold the the party line.
In the second case, the media loses the ability to be on the air, and the anchor/journalist goes to jail, (because the big boss, the government that owns everything, was directly gone against, and the insubbordination is considered sedition, because they make the laws) meaning there is defacto coercion to hold the party line.
The degree of severity of penalty for not holding the party line is the only real difference. In either case, it is a career ending move to decide not to obey.