Oh, but that's probably because the worst of CNN and NYT are posted here (even if "the worst" happens a bit more often than one might expect). So of course, we have an exaggerated picture of such outlets. That is not to say that they are inaccurate because they're not. But, for example, Tucker Carlson had "cogent moments" but was largely pretty bad and always played himself off as being a "only sane guy," even at times taking position that the radical left might take, such as on Syria or Russiagate. However, most of what has been said by Tucker Carlson, from my understanding, could be considered mundane or standard and that goes for CNN and NYT. Mundanely right-wing, to be sure, but it's not the frothing-at-your-mouth extremely ultra-right bullshit you see posted about on Twitter, for example.

Also, Fox News of even 2019 gave me nightmares that I stopped keeping up with it as much as possible since then.

It would be nice if there was a more scientific analysis of these networks and media (maybe even putting them side by side) and not simply curated posts, anecdotes, and actual events involving said media outlets (such as what happens on, say, Twitter, where the worst of the worst is given of these media outlets all the time, but we know they aren't always saying something dumb, but usually pretty mundane; it's those non-mundane parts that get you in the end, though...)

And as we know, the only way to win that game is not to read the article.

Which makes it fucking hilarious how it was treated like some kind of communist safe space in 2016