You're saying that oligarchs taking control is good because it will cause more people to realize that oligarchs are taking control?

He's saying that ownership by a loud, conspicuous oligarch generates more public scrutiny than a quiet, inconspicuous one.

2016 called and wants it’s loud conspicuous oligarch back.

No, I think he is saying an oligarch that has a lot of focus on the rest of the oligarchically controlled media taking control of this piece of media already controlled by the haut bourgeois oligarchy will draw more public attention to the oligarchic control of the media without actually changing the fact of that control one bit.

Which is still, IMO, foolish, given, among other things, the degree to which large swathes of the public have parasocial relationships with the particular celebrity oligarch in question, but it's not saying that making the problem worse will draw attention.

For whatever reason people think we live in a democracy and not an oligarchy. I guess it’s in the oligarchs best interest to keep that facade up.

search news.google.com for "oligarch" and see the pattern of how the media has propagandistically twisted this word to only mean a specific kind of person now, conveniently excluding those that control our (Western) societies.