The argument seems more “is this the guy we want running the plurality of American comedy” not “what do we want Lorne Michaels to do?”
Remember that after SNL received criticism for not hiring Black or gay actors, they started to do so more. To me, this article feels like it has a similar intent — “hey Lorne, how can we improve our practices while also helping to improve the outcome”
Perhaps another way of putting my feelings into words is that the essay feels far too much like shaming to still qualify as a "can't we do better?"
It's written in a voice that strongly implies that Lorne actively resists progressive notions, and attempts to get readers to sort themselves into "part of the problem" and "part of the solution" groups. I find this reductive at best.
I'm fatigued of people telling me that I should be a lot more upset.
We might have to agree to disagree that the author isn't judging the audience for their complicity in finding SNL funny. The only reason to publish this essay is to make people question whether it's still okay to enjoy the show, given how evil it all is.