The author concludes that the media does not have excessive power to impose opinions, contrary to the view of some critics. His support is that, if the media purveyed an overly narrow range of opinion, that would be sufficient for it to impose opinions. But it doesn’t purvey an overly narrow range of opinion.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity. The author argues that, because a sufficient condition (overly restricted opinion) isn’t true, its necessary condition (imposing opinions) couldn’t be true. This is flawed reasoning, because only the absence of a necessary condition (not a sufficient condition) can tell you that something can’t be true.

Consider the analogous argument: “If this food was an orange, it would be a fruit. It’s not an orange, so it can’t be a fruit.” This is fallacious, because even though being an orange is enough to make something a fruit, not all fruits are oranges.