People do look to them for information, although they do state that the information is their opinion, they back it up with false evidence.
Do you have proof that their viewership is indeed comprised of individuals looking for information? Or even a majority of said viewership?
And I'll stick with the Naked Ape example for now, since I actually watched a bit of his video on Berkley. Where does he cite false facts? Granted, I didn't watch the entire thing, but his statements were also presented alongside screenshots of articles and whatnot, which frankly I found quite laudable in a culture of misinformation. If I'm to be totally honest, the minute or so of the video I watched was actually quite enjoyable. The editing was of a decently high quality, there were plenty of jokes, and once you ignore the "Sensationalist" attitude in addressing Democrats (Refer to my post in the "Opinions on the Alt-Right and SJWs" for clarification) it's a pretty decent conservative channel.
Ignoring Huffington Post, CNN and NYTimes have a much higher accuracy to reporting whole stories than Fox News does.
I really, really want proof on this statement. And you'll need some impressive statistics from a centrist data center to prove this to me, because this is about as polarized a claim about the media as you can get. CNN and NYTimes have had a host of poor reporting examples just in the past few weeks- Not acknowledging the temporary aspect of the ban being a major one, initially not even discussing where the list of countries came from. Another good example of this poor reporting ethic exhibited in Left-leaning news sources (Note: I'm not saying Fox is perfect, far from it) would be reporting on the protests following the recent raids in the California area that led to the arrests of a number of illegals, in which it was ignored until the police made a statement clarifying concretely that the raids were routine, performed en masse under President Obama, and yes, were preplanned against criminals.