Kudos for checking the sources. I have used AllSides. MediaBiasFactCheck is more widely cited. Both are somewhat subjective, as Mike pointed out a few months ago. AllSides was founded by Republican political operative. MediaBiasFactCheck (IMHO) uses a better (though NOT perfect) methodology in determining their ratings.

The Hill, which you linked, is reasonably good. Centrist, and reasonably factual ("high" credibility). I read some of their stuff when it hits my feed.

NPR is one of the best. In terms of factual reporting, they are very difficult to beat.

Yes, Guardian is probably the shakiest of my sources ("medium" credibility). I almost always check another source to confirm what they say. They have "mixed" accuracy, and are left-leaning. But sometimes I am alerted to something by the Guardian, and then go check it out. Or, sometimes, it's something as simple as "Amelia Earhart's Plane Found?", which I may not check out further because it isn't THAT important. Al Jazeera is another one I confirm with other sources, though I've found them to be reasonably reliable AND they often cover stories that western media is slow to cover (still rated "medium" credibility).

I forgot to mention the BBC. High accuracy. Mostly left-leaning, except when it comes to the Royals (they are pro-Royal...I'm anti-Royal, but don't have a dog in that fight since I'm not British).

I used to read the Huffington Post, but they were clearly extreme left (not a problem for me...I'm a big boy and can sort out bias), and had shaky credibility (a BIG problem for me). So I stopped.

The problem with your sources isn't that they are right-leaning, but that they are consistently questionable factually. There is always bias in story selection, and even wording. Ground News will actually show you different headlines of the same story that give entirely different framing to the story (yeah, I'm really talking myself into subscribing to them). But if they get the facts wrong, then they are useless. And your sources usually either get the facts completely wrong (as has been exposed to you several times), or they cherry-pick out of context facts to lead you to an erroneous conclusion.

Also, I'm not interested in opinion pieces from any outlet. So if the NYT opinion was rated "left", I don't care. I read the factual stories to form my own opinions. I don't need someone to give my opinion to me.

Wikipedia: AllSides - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org - Fact Check
en.wikipedia.org - Ground News

I don't think anyone has a lock on great sources. But yours are demonstrably, consistently, faulty (except for The Hill...that one is reasonably good). Hopefully you don't stop reading The Hill because I said it was credible. :-)