I don't think your numbers are reasonable. Widespread use of fake subscription services distorts things but plenty of people get CNN level views with orders of magnitude fewer than 50 million subs. Here [1] is an account whose median view is CNN prime-time level. She has 186k subs.

Beyond that it's a power law distribution. Some guy who uploaded 1 video for a friend counts as a 'YouTuber', but obviously they do not matter in terms of overall competition. We're only talking about the channels that are regularly uploading content of some reasonable standard. And amongst that group - CNN level is very much in the mid-tier range, and I think that's being generous. There are currently about 70k channels with at least a million subs.

As for influence, I don't think news has much of any influence at all in US politics anymore. They blew it all by going hyper-partisan for the sake of views - moderate short to mid-term gains for catastrophic long-term consequences. Pretty much the standard of most US businesses now a days. In terms of confidence in institutions, television news now ranks lower than every measured institution, except Congress. [2] They scored 11%, Congress scored 10%. And that's with piggy-backing off the phrasing of simply "television news" from the poll, instead of just cable news. Broadcast news is going to score significantly higher in confidence than cable news.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/@andreabotezmusic/videos

[2] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.as...

I think people typically flip the causality here. People's voting isn't determined by their media habits, but rather their media habits are determined by their voting. For instance in these cable news discussions, Fox is often a huge target. But if you covertly turned Fox into the NYTimes tomorrow, you'd have 0 impact on election outcomes. All you'd end up doing is creating a vacuum that'd probably be filled by OANN or another similar network.

Tucker Carlson is another great example. There was a segment of people who were loudly rejoicing after he was fired from Fox. But it predictably had a less than zero effect on his visibility, as he now gets vastly more viewers than he did on Fox by running his segments independently. People weren't watching Tucker because of Fox, they were watching Fox because of Tucker. And, in turn, the people watching Tucker aren't just adopting his views - but rather tend to watch him because they have comparable worldviews themselves. If his worldview suddenly turned into that of Rachel Maddow overnight, all that'd happen is his viewership would also trend to zero.

---

Just think about yourself. Do you honestly think you're going to go start supporting the current administration if you just freebased a few thousand hours of Fox, OANN, or whatever else? Our fundamental views are shaped very slowly and more from things like life experience than headlines, which is a big part of the reason that age is such a large factor in typical ideology.