Evidently some sources think so. Though even the rating of media bias seems an equally amateur effort.
But it is amusing to see what some people think of this particular alleged source of information:
"Overall, we rate Freedom First Network Far-Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, the use of poor sources, a lack of transparency, and false claims. "
Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, False Information
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Freedom First Network
Personally if and when I want to see if a story has real traction in the media, the first thing I do is to see if the wires services (Reuters, AP, UPI) carry such a story first, and that it is then dispersed to mainstream media sources to republish. If neither sources are willing to even comment on such stories, it speaks volumes.
I might be interpreting what you're saying incorrectly; are you saying that you only believe information that comes through "mainstream" media?