One needs to go see the author's full essay (linked). Its bias is more evident. Whoever did the "rewrite" took much of the edge off while leaving the core message largely intact. The story only hints at the advantages of activism and the benefits it brings other than exploitation of notoriety. It also fails to mention the corporate and media support afforded many of these campaigns which generate substantial profitable revenue streams for corporate media "participants". Corporations with "interests" in these celebrities benefit without association with the causes and from the ability to sell advertising around the soft-news time they generate. The image issues for the celebrities is, itself, soft news, something the National Interest seemingly finds annoying. Finally, the piece fails to say one word about the activism of corporate executives, direct or indirect and their access to media. A comparison of some sort might have added depth and credibility. Otherwise, it comes off as a gently hit piece.