Presumably because WSJ is the one who wrote the article this person found objectionable. NYT did not write such an article. They did say "The epistemic collaps

Presumably because WSJ is the one who wrote the article this person found objectionable. NYT did not write such an article. They did say "The epistemic collapse is total when traditional high-quality information sources like the Wall Street Journal", so there is probably an element of attacking what is high quality though. [I dont follow us media landscape, i have no idea what the relative quality of various papers are or if you are correct about NYT] That said, more generally when constructing arguments, you generally want to attack the strongest version of your opponents argument. Attacking a paper known for being higher quality is always going to be more convincing than attacking a paper that is less known.