The people who managed to sway people with their ideas took over the nations. If that's the point you want answered, I agree that's a large part of how a new system gains power, sure. I agree that you'd use the press to popularize your new ideas for a new society. It was thanks to newspapers, or rather the demand for more liberties expressed in those newspapers that ended absolutism in my country. The society that followed was one that came to appreciate those liberties. Before that, mass media promulgated ideas that glorified absolutism as the most "natural" of states and the liberties we have now as "chaotic". Before the Enlightenment the people were nothing. There was no nation, there was only the state. The absolutist monarchies rejected the notion of the nation-state, because it implied that the state should be governed by the will of the nation, not by the King-that-is-State ideal of absolutism. The ideas to combat that old notion came from the printing press - just as the idea of absolutism, in its day, btw.
Not being a reactionary I am not sure what you see as so desirable about the pre-Enlightenment era. I'm too individualistic to subject myself to the aristocracy of old, too anti-authoritarian to bow to other than my queen. Her authority is one derived from respect of her and for the history she represents, not obedience to her. I am not a dog and want no dog's life.
You're not going to get a reactionary US society, at least not judging on the popularity of your more radical (heh...irony..
)views here. But if you want such a society, or a US society move in a more direction more in line with your views anyway, the way to do so would be to question the prevailing political reality using mass media, and having your own journalists reporting on the facts from your perspective within that mass media. Now, of course, if the US became your ideal society, the US constitution would likely be scrapped given the ideals it's based on, so that would mean an end to any new attempts at independent journalism, and thus any (public) attempt at subverting your newly established order for an even newer one. Same if actual Marxists took power in the US. But if what you're really against is simply the notion that you have to compete, with your views against other, more pro-liberty, or more pro-democracy views and that that competition is unfair or destructive.... not that you'd want it anyway, but no sympathy from me on that account.
Democracy cannot accept its own disintegration, nor should it. That's Popper's tolerance paradox in action. You are an anti-democrat, and do not agree with the Enlightenment values you're country's founding fathers based your country's constitution on. Fair enough. If you want to go about dismantling all that, you have to still work the current capitalist system of getting private backers, work the market, get listeners or readers, and you have to provide a new perspective on the same news - or possibly go beyond what other journalists even bother looking for.
And after you've convinced everyone, the US will only get their news from the Most Exultant High Chronicler's daily show "You Love the Government and the Government Loves Your Precious Bodily Fluids". Best monopoly is State monopoly.
