Absolutely. He leaps from topic to topic, often with a weak link between each one.

For example:

"A hundred years ago, at a time very like ours, a small group of journalists did just that. And the person who takes you back to that time is Tamara Mellon's ex-husband - Matthew Mellon."

"At the end of the 19th century, Matthew Mellon's great great uncle - Andrew Mellon - was one of the most powerful and richest men in the world. He was part of a small group of bankers and industrialists who not only dominated America - but were using the power of money to undermine, corrupt and control politicians, judges and the whole system of democracy."

He goes from talking about hacking, spying and intrusive tabloid journalism in the modern era to the turn of the century Robber Barons, and the only link is a coincidental blood relationship between the characters that he flits between.

I feel the author has something important to say, even if it's difficult to grasp exactly what it is. He would perhaps benefit from splitting the article into several pieces (surprising to say, as so many online publications abuse this in order to artificially drive page views) in order to focus on one topic at a time, and then bringing the narrative together at the end.