... I've just read a three-page article which seems long on conjecture and hyperbole, but rather short on facts.
(Actually I didn't even notice the byline until I was about four paragraphs into reading it and then thought "Hang on, this sounds like [scrolls up] yep, it's Orlowski."
Let's ignore the rhetoric such as "assassinating" and "silenced" and the background which is interesting, but possibly a little over-done and see what it actually says;
Oh, right. Businesses who have vested interests like to get media outlets to publish stories which are favourable to them. Just like elected politicians do (such as State Prosecutors who like to prosecute high-profile, media-friendly cases against kidnappers, paedophiles and such which boost their profile and, thus, their re-election chances) and just like Big Media do by trying to redefine copyright infringement as "theft".
All the rest of it seems to be Andrew bashing his favourite targets (Obama, people who object to excessive copyright enforcement and DCM and those who want laws to be proportionate rather than overbearing).
At least it was published as "comment" (which is only one step above "opinion")...