Statements like, “this [broad category of people] believe [X] and they also believe [Y] and those two things are clearly in conflict”, are usually applying a couple composition/division fallacies in a way that appears there’s a glaring contradiction.
It hasn’t been established that the same people on here who believe [X] are all exactly the same people who believe [Y]. The amount of subset overlap (or lack thereof) usually explains the contradiction.
This poster is just pretending to be above it all
For the part of the remaining overlap, where there is a real contradiction, people are also capable of holding two conflicting beliefs, not that they should—it’s more of a compartmentalization problem for those individuals.
Which brings me to the final flaw in the reasoning, which is about the assertion of the contradiction in the first place. It’s possible that both viewpoints could be rectifiable with one or more takes that don’t present a conflict.
Like perhaps some people know that media influences their thinking too, but they are aware that certain outlets are more influential than others, so they’re upset at the really influential outlets but aren’t so angry at the less influential ones, which is what they try to consume.
Caveat—I’m not sure this last example is air tight, I’m not in their heads, just trying to guess at what a non-conflicting reasoning might be to illustrate the point.
My block finger gets itchy when I see any post that starts with "The same people who..."