I am disappointed by Trudy Stewart's science part of the Today interview, but I agree with her point that The King's Speech is the first movie to reveal the psychosocial difficulties people who stutter face. But not on the science:
1) There is still no compelling evidence that early intervention is "really really effective.", and that it "prevents stammering going into adulthood". At best, treatment optimizes the psychosocial adaptation to a stuttering brain which might also reduce stuttering. Recovery is very likely a neurobiological process unaffected by treatment.
It's just a wrong hope for parents. They hope for a full recovery, but therapy can at best reduce stuttering and psychosocial maladaptation. And if they fail, they blame it on themselves.
2) I also don't agree with risk factors like family history and part-word repetition helping in treatment. They don't guide us in the method of treatment. They only inform us that some are more likely to keep on stuttering. Every child needs to be treated for what could happen, and not how likely they will stay stuttering? OK. I guess you can make the case that children with no risk factors should be less often monitored.
I would also add that family history could also point to an anti-risk factor. A friend of mine stuttered as a child severely (more than I did apparently), but he recovered fully. And his daughter went through the same process. I strongly suspect that genetics can also point to recovery.
3) The brain imaging has ALSO been on structure which is a more significant finding than just different brain functioning.