Aesthetics, plus the seductive appeal that pre-modern, pre-liberal-democratic societies (when the governments were authoritarian, the women were submissive, and the men "were men") have for reactionaries, incels, and cryptofacists.
I think by "support" they mean "send billions of dollars in US military hardware, which both funds the military-industrial complex and furthers wars and conflicts on the other side of the world". Not everyone thinks that is a good idea.
While I'd personally argue that the quality of the character development, writing, and storytelling in the show doesn't even achieve the level of "fine", you're right in that 1) people should be allowed to enjoy things in peace and 2) RoP in particular attracts criticism which is often hyperbolic. At the same time, however, there should also be the freedom to honestly critique a piece of media without being labeled as a hater, obsessive fanboy, or a neckbeard, etc. Especially when dealing with an IP as treasured as Tolkien's.
Whether you find this article excessive in its criticism or not, the writer makes the very valid point that the media landscape today is becoming increasingly saturated with this 'memberberries/nostalgia/callback type of storytelling, along with the constant stream of prequels and sequels based on this formula. People are growing tired of it, and Rings of Power has it deep in its bones.
For a good examination of the showrunners' over-reliance on referencing the Jackson movie trilogy in lieu of interesting, original storytelling, I highly recommend this YouTube video. I think it really gets to the core of why so many people find RoP frustrating or disappointing as a show in its own right, let alone as a Tolkien adaptation.
Hard to argue with him about the JJ-Abramsification of all things, or the perplexing fact that modern audiences appear to lap it up.
Watching season one of RoP felt undeniably reminiscent of watching The Force Awakens and almost hearing the audible *ding as yet another callback got checked off the list. It's not art any more; it's just content to be consumed.
And what is dropping this wikipedia link supposed to prove?
Does it contradict the scholarly article I cited which supports everything I said?
P.S. who is "you people"?
Could you share any specific examples? I haven't seen or read any instances of him being that off the mark.
According to this YouGov poll of least <> most trusted news sources , CNN lands bang in the middle of the pack. So not as bad as FOX, but not as high as PBS or ABC.
As for my own 2¢, all the US cable news channels are varying degrees of bad. Best to avoid, generally speaking.