More plural abuse?

Some time ago, I posted on the subject of plural abuse. I've found another interesting case, from Ode magazine: "If you're committed to transforming the world, Ode isn't just your media—it's your medium." Technically speaking, this is not ungrammatical: it's possible to have a sentence with a singular noun phrase on the left of the copula and a plural on the right, like "The reason for his failure is his many mistakes." Nevertheless, it sounds decidedly odd, because we assume that Ode is not several different media; in other words, we are seeing yet another case of "media" used as a singular noun. But then, a mere three words later, we have "medium". I can only assume that the author is deliberately teasing apart the senses of the word, so that "media" is used in the popular sense of TV, magazines, Twitter etc. (and as such fails to distinguish between singular and plural) while "medium" keeps the meaning of tool or means for attaining some end. (Note for cognitive linguists: both keep the SOURCE-PATH-GOAL image schema.)

I suspect that this divergence of singular and plural to form different words is most common with words that have irregular plurals as a result of being loaned from another language, like the example I gave in my earlier post of taraf and etraf in Turkish, Arabic loan words which originally were the singular and plural of of the same word but now mean "side" and "environment" respectively (with each having their own Turkish plural). A lot of people probably really think that "medium" and "media" are different words, and of course if enough people continue to believe this, then eventually they really will be different words, and referring to television as "a medium" will officially be counted as an archaism.