I think the term ethnic cleansing is underused. It’s a strong term with a clear, unambiguous meaning that people can still stand against. It does not run afoul of the fact that when many people hear “genocide”, they don’t think of formal definitions, they think of WW2, trains and gas chambers, and attempts at thorough extermination at a large scale.
Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, begs simple questions, like, what is the ethnicity being cleansed from? Simple answer: their land. How are they being cleansed? Killed, driven away or assimilated into another culture. What, exactly, is being cleansed? That group of distinct people right there, their name is whatever.
It’s clear, concise, and very hard to argue with from any sort of semantic position.
Another advantage of text, for me at least, is that I can read much faster than I can listen. This is why I prefer text articles to news videos, even though video can often offer extra visual information over what photographs can offer.
That said, I do somewhat agree with the article’s concern that live conversation is an independent skill and potentially has its own unique side-benefits that might be becoming rarer.