This one isn't that bad. (For utter, words-don't-work-that-way confusion, see Debord. Or good ol' Hegel.)

Whatever its political, pedagogical, cultural content, the plan is always to get some meaning across,

That bit is straightforward.

to keep the masses within reason;

"The masses" has a standard denotation but various connotations. Freddy Nietzsche talks about enthusiastic young people, which is more specific.

What's "to keep within reason"? What this evokes is talking someone down, preventing outbursts. Applied to the masses, does he mean control - propaganda, opiate of the masses? The context suggests the opposite: to present a logical argument and try to convince audiences with it as the core of communication, more important than ethos and pathos and Cheetos.

an imperative to produce meaning that takes the form of the constantly repeated imperative to moralise information to better inform, to better socialize, to raise the cultural level of the masses, etc.

What?

an imperative to produce meaning that takes the form of the constantly repeated imperative

Okay, "imperative" seems to mean what social justice types can "enforcement by shaming". If you don't talk like a Vulcan, whoever is producing those great media reform plans (pretentious elites?) will shame you.

to moralise information

Okay, so media becomes morally loaded: information good, fluff bad. Much like food is morally loaded: vegetables good, fat bad.

to better inform, to better socialize, to raise the cultural level of the masses, etc.

Examples! Hallelujah, hosanna in excelsis! So the media reformers want to make people better. If you say a thing and hearing it doesn't make listeners better, you're selling junk food.

Nonsense: the masses scandalously resist this imperative of rational communication.

That seems pretty clear too: logical arguments aren't what convinces people. Nietzsche says that too, but in a more specific context: recruiting for a cause.

They are giving meaning:

I assume this means: "the masses decide what they want to take from what they hear, and it's not logical argument, it's"

they want spectacle.

I'll grant that "spectacle" is a totally precise and useful term of art that people clearly define whenever I'm out of earshot. But if he's saying what Fred says, he doesn't need the jargon; it's not a rare concept.

Freddypants is saying "If you want a young, energetic, status-seeking enthusiast to be enthusiastic about your cause, don't bother calmly explaining why your cause is good. Instead, make it look awesome and promise exciting heroics.". (Which he what he does in Zarathustra, and it worked on me but I already agreed.) Baudrillard appears to be saying "If you want to convince people, calm explanations won't work.".