The 'skeptical' or 'free speech' media would include things like Quillette, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin (although he might qualify as conservative these days), and the many Substacks written by people like Taibbi (too many to name individually).

The way I use 'censored' here is specifically in response to Taibbi's title 'Meet The Censored'. While traditionally, we only call something 'censored' if it is actively suppressed, more recently, the concept of 'censored', as used in the 'free speech' media, sometimes include editoral gatekeeping decisions to not feature certain viewpoints. For example, the liberal media's refusal to feature gender critical voices, even if they are not attacked or suppressed either, is sometimes said to be 'censorship'. Refusal to feature moderate trans people would also be 'censorship' of the same kind.

The mainstream media's defence for not including gender critical voices is also partly based on relevance. Gender critical feminists are a minority among those who identify as feminists, and there are not many gender critical people in mainstream journalism. Gender critical viewpoints also have very low influence among the audience of liberal media, and in 'blue' areas of America in general. Outlets like CNN, NBC, and NYT are hence highlighting based on social relevance. Still, the 'free speech media' does not accept this, partly because they believe the relevance has been artifically distorted by gatekeepers in the establishment. Which is why they deliberately platform gender critical people as 'censored' voices. If this is their view, then they should apply it consistently across the board (or else they would have to shut up about the 'liberal bias' of the aforementioned outlets, to be logically consistent).