The media watch dog you cite (influencewatch.org) is a conservative outfit with a partisan mission, so you should take the assessments with a grain of salt [0].
But AFAICS it doesn't mean that they produce rubbish a rule, only that they concentrate on demonstrating left wing affiliations. In some case they do overstep the line of decency however, like when they try to smear commondreams.org with a "far-left" annotation, without substance. While consistently using the term "left of center" to describe Common Dreams, they use the "far-left" tag in three highly dubious instances:
1. Quoting your link: because "far-left" Susan Sarandon has praised them. Now, is Susan Sarandon a "far-left" activist? Not according to the definitions I use [3], and nothing such is mentioned on her Wikipedia page. [1]
2. Quoting your link: because "Its opinion section does not feature any right-of-center columnists, and most of its articles advocate for far-left policies and political perspectives." To support this claim they link to an article on commondreams.org written by Jeffrey Sterling, a CIA employee turned ethical whistleblower (he revealed details about a covert operation to supply Iran with flawed nuclear warhead blueprints), for which he was subsequently imprisoned [2]. Jeffrey Sterling has never been accused of being "far-left" in any serious publication as far as I can see.
3. Quoting you link: As proof of far-left bias, influencewatch.org posits that "opinion contributors have also called for far-left foreign policy implementation." and then goes on to quote some pretty standard run-of the mill progressive stances, like the role of US economic blockade against Cuba in the popular protests against living conditions.
While "far-left" can be considered subjective, it is unavoidable that it has a hard, commonly agreed, meaning just as "far-right" does. It usually implies extreme intolerant and fringe opinions, often involving condoling violence as legitimate political means. [3]
Insidiously using "far-left" in this case is just as bad as people on the left trying to conflate normal libertarian and conservative values with those of fascists and Nazis.
You might not have considered how sloppily used terms like this contribute to the enshittification of discourse, both political and otherwise. Perhaps now is a good time to start considering it.
The fact that you're greyed-out is interesting. In this same reply thread, there's someone alluding to far-right media outlets being "pro-fascist"[1] with positive post karma, while saying a far-left media outlet is communist has people actively downvoting you. Fascinating that the user moderation is so obviously biased in this instance.
