Certain other commentary magazines (eg Weekly Standard and Commentary), think tanks (AEI, Heritage, Cato), business newspapers (Wall Street Journal).

I do think there is an issue in that these sort of commentators have much less visibility than before in American politics, so it's easy to form a negative opinion about right wing journalism. Partially as a result, I can name several commentators that have migrated from "Republican conservative" to a more "independent" oriented stance. Names like David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, David Brooks, and George Will come to mind. None of these names are 100% "liberal", neither are still today. They just don't fit well with right-wing media that has increasingly become populist.

It is probably my bias, but I can't think of a similar type of left-wing commentator that's made the same transition. On the other hand, I've noticed increased populism in more left-oriented media too...

This is a shame, because even when these type of commentators were at their most raucous, I always got the impression that both sides respected each other. (You saw the same thing at, say the Supreme Court, where Scalia and Ginsburg were friends.) A lot of media these days in contrast is extremely us vs. them and tribal oriented, with seemingly no respect for the other side at all.

Let me assure you right wing people have as many issues they want to tell people about as left wing people. You might not like them or consider them idealistic, but they do. To be blunt, your comment comes off like you live in a left wing enclave and you have no real human experience with people with differing believes. Which is funny, because that is also how modern journalism comes off - privileged white rich kids at liberal schools who then shuttle down to the equally liberal newsroom, never interacting with half the country.