Here's another way of framing this headline: "A company that provides critical services has lobbyists - just like pharma, hospital networks, national defense, and food and agriculture."
It appears that a significant chunk of the local online news market in these regions is only financially viable based on pay-for-coverage arrangements with moneyed interests.
So, I agree, lobbyists gonna lobby. And some of the lines in the article are pearl clutching. (GASP a utility company donated to a SuperPAC that opposed a ballot initiative? Yeah, that's normal. You might not like Citizens United, but that's just something they did, not something they're "accused" of.)
But to the extent that you have a crop of local-interest news and politics websites that present as objective but, based on the quotes in the articles, wouldn't be able to exist without opaque financial arrangements that slant coverage... yeah, it's a genuine media story. Less about the power company, and more about journalism. (Which, indeed, Folkenflik is NPR's media reporter.)
Alabama has high electric rates, an unusually profitable utility company, and this arrangement has proven durable. For me, that's a good enough "so what" for a New York based media reporter to condescend to the journalistic ethics of these Southern publications. It's not just academic; it's harming people.
Newspapers also have ethical limits. Ethical limits aren't legally enforceable, but for the most part major newspapers don't allow pharma, hospitals, defense, etc. to cross those lines. There are always exceptions, I'm sure, but the newspapers still cling to the hope that they'll be seen as accurate rather than simply shilling for whoever pays them. It undercuts their entire mission.
So this isn't the same as the usual round of lobbying. Lobbying is a legal and regulated activity, a way for groups to coordinate access to politicians and plan their public relations. That always has the risk of being shady, but it's more above-board than most people imagine.
Except when the rules are broken, and in that case it might be a crime. That's newsworthy.
Your framing is way worse. It shows nihilism and fits downright criminal/corrupt behavior under the much more neutral term "lobbying".
Even though it's strange to call people who bribe news outlets rather than politicians "lobbyists," because that sort of begs the question.
May as well be in Canada.