Europe

Sure. It's genuinely a problematic situation. I'll include the Washington Post too.

More of a general point: there's little pan-European media and it isn't well known. What's mostly consumed is Anglo-Saxon, either from the US or the UK - neither of which are part of the EU and even the UK media sphere is barely European. They have different agendas, lack the cultural and institutional knowledge and measure the EU and Europe alongside their own standards. It frames the conversation in Europe, directly and indirectly, in a way not beneficial to Europe.

Most Europeans don't even recognise this is happening, and has for decades, and indiscriminately share things from the US or UK, including the worst of media outlets. It has consequences and plays a key factor in Europeans failing to recognise the US as anything other than an equal and an ally which they most certainly are not (and never truly have been).

The NYT and the WaPo are two of the most established newspapers in the US and considered papers of record, both are probably also the most read US newspapers outside of the US (alongside the WSJ - which is less problematic but leans right and is not as neutral as many Europeans consider it to be). All have a history going back well over a century, and a reputation that goes along with that.

Both have issues with framing. Even if the facts are technically right, the way they are presented can make things seem different than they are. There's a massive difference in how republicans are represented vs democrats, and more globally the right vs the left. Their difference in coverage of Biden and Trump is an extreme example of this.

WaPo was acquired by Jeff Bezos (Amazon) a few years back and he has editorial influence. One of the most notable things is that he told the opinion writers can only write about personal liberties and free markets. Anything to challenge this is no longer allowed.
Bezos also blocked WaPo from endorsing Kamala Harris in the last US election (whether or not you supported her isn't the point - the point is that a supposedly editorially independent paper did not get to make its own decisions).

As for the NYT, there are many issues and controversies. To focus on the two big, current, ones: their coverage of the war in Gaza (I'll let wiki do the explaining) and the incredibly biased writing on transgender people which has caused genuine harm. Alejandra Carabello (clinical instructor at Harvard) has done a tremendous deep dive going back several years.

As a side note: the parody NYT Pitchbot is a nice one to understand their pattern.

There's so much more but this was already three times longer than I intended to write.

I'll get off my high horse now.

It definitely will happen, it's more a matter of does it happen because we choose to or because we break the planet so badly we stop existing at scale

Well no. At some point it will become too much expensive to extract them to be able to continue to use them.

Not considering that sooner or later someone will realize that it would be less expensive, in the long run, to devolop a serious alternative to the oil (be sun, wind, nuclear or whatever else) than be subject to the blackmail of a single state and/or person which would decide that it is a great idea to start a war just because. And this, as a byproduct, will also resolve most of the problems in the middle east region since without oil they had nothing.