A few semi-related thoughts:
1. I've read a small handful of articles in my field that use a CRT approach. One of the articles was picked up and misrepresented by various right wing national outlets for a small bit of an outrage hit. I may not have agreed or followed every logical leap the articles made, but they all challenged my assumptions and thought processes, making me better at what I do. I shared some of them with my students and it made for lively discussion and they came away with an expanded understanding of their field and how they fit into it. There's a real value and power in the way that CRT approaches things, even if it can be frustrating at times.
2. My limited understanding of CRT is mostly in how it interacts with my field. It has its own technical language and approaches things very differently than most of us are used to thinking. I don't think the explanations you'll see on major media outlets are likely to be full or meaningful.
3. Most of this outrage is third hand. Parents are upset about something, but there's little explanation of what specifically they're upset about, or that explanation doesn't really make sense. Now the fact that parents are upset (which is absolutely true) is used as evidence of a problem. It becomes a self-perpetuating problem. Outrage over outrage, but what's the source? Giving lists of upset people who are upset about being upset isn't really evidence of anything other than our outrage-addicted culture.
4. Since this is mostly focused on education, my drive-by comment is that an education that doesn't upset you or make you uncomfortable (or your kids or whoever) isn't much of an education. If your education simply reenforces your pre-existing worldview, then you might not be learning very much.