A big part of the reason why you don't hear many 10-minute songs on the radio or elsewhere is because it's SIGNIFICANTLY harder to write a piece like that which is satisfying, doesn't get boring, and is also simple enough in structure to remain interesting upon first listening. Similarly you don't hear many songs less the 1-2 minutes long because you don't have enough time to develop anything interesting enough to have a satisfying "narrative journey" for a listener.
There aren't temporary trends -- they're pretty basic to human experience in general which has been consistent for centuries. Has the author of TFA never listened to Broadway songs, let alone historical music? Has he not noticed that the same song lengths and structural patterns tend to occur there, where the constraints of media and radio play are less relevant?
I couldn't agree more about "there aren't temporary trends". Human enjoyment of music is pretty much as you explain it.
However I have to point out that this renewed focus on short songs is strange, being that going back to the beginning of 20th century pop music, songs were regularly 2-3 minutes in length. Take "Michelle" by The Beatles for example. It clocks in at 2:40. Sheer brilliance in less than three minutes. Short songs are nothing new.
On the flip side we have a band like Rush that has consistently created longer songs that "remain interesting" and usually don't adhere to the AABA song structure. For bands like Tool that make this attempt, it usually falls flat.