Skipping over all the stuff about who employs or is supported by "terrorists" and who isn't*:
I am not wading back into this argument, but it has been weighing on my mind that someplace others seem to think I endorse Fox News. I do not, I think they are piss poor journalism with an agenda that is marketed to a specific niche. I do not watch them and frankly think it is the lunatic fringe in many cases.
Position #1 that might give people the wrong impression. It was permissible in the Nineties to talk about the conservative movement's "lunatic fringe," when we were all still trying to chalk up its excesses to such an entity. Fox News' positions today, in all their whacked-out excessiveness and bald deception, are
core base positions of the conservative movement. Trying to refer to them as "lunatic fringe" is arguably an evasion of reality, or at least could be seen that way. (From another standpoint, the entire movement it's pushing forward may wind up becoming a "lunatic fringe" of American politics more generally -- only 19% of respondents to recent Pew poll were willing to identify as Republican, frex -- but that doesn't seem like what you're talking about here.)
I will use them for an example held up beside other news organizations that I think have an agenda. The agenda may be differing but the approach is the same.
Position #2 that might give people the wrong impression. Most American news organizations have a (mostly "centrist," which in most developed countries would equate to moderate-right) agenda. Most of them do not
go to the extremes of Fox News in promoting it, and trying to pretend otherwise could present the appearance of your using a fake-equivalence tactic that has been a bog-standard conservative movement deception for four decades or more. The take-away here is that if you really want to equate other outlets to Fox News, it probably behooves you to really know what you're talking about and make sure the comparison is genuinely supportible.
* In the Middle East, who is and is not supposed to be a "terrorist" can turn on a dime. It actually wasn't that long ago that Saddam Hussein, for instance (during the Iran-Iraq War), was supposed to be a bulwark against "terrorism." Some wariness about pronouncing about the supposedly "pro-terrorist" Qataris is certainly warranted.
EDIT: Incidentally, for what it's worth? Given other things you've said and how you generally comport yourself in discussion, I wouldn't class you with the "conservative movement" I'm discussing above. Movement conservatism and small-c conservatism are at this point quite different things, and the latter still has credibility that the former has long since relinquished. But in my experience, many small-c conservatives still have a difficult time gauging the broader mood toward Movement Conservative media, tropes and memes to which they feel some visceral attachment, and which they often don't realize have been badly compromised by the "movement's" missteps (particularly in the last decade-and-a-half or so). So, don't think this post is necessarily excoriating you.