David Plotz doesn't see any difference between the speech denied to corporations that's granted to media organizations (which are, of course, also incorporated)? The difference is hidden in the 1st Amendment: They are the media, and have been given a central place in American affairs in the Constitution. Corporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution. They are artificial entities that had to be granted some of the same status as real people because they aren't really people. All of the people who make up corporations are real & have real rights—and that's enough.

The Constitution doesn't define what media or press is so if any company produces "media" or press content couldn't they be considered a media company?

Do you really want a right wing extreamist filled conservative congress to step in and start deciding what "media" companies are allowed to express opposing viewpoints and which ones are just (in their view since they would be making the rules) corperate shills?

Freedom of speech can be anoying but it's better than government controlled speech.

I don't think it's a good word choice to say "[c]orporations aren't mentioned in the Constitution" because technically neither is the media. Being less nitpicky, the press certainly isn't granted a central place in American affairs in the Constitution and while there may be a constitutional case for treating 'responsible' press outfits differently than other corporate broadcasters, that isn't explicit in the Constitution so you have to actually construct an argument for why it should be read that way.