The economic system of a news outlet depends on whether that news outlet is public, private, or government.

That statement does not make sense, given the rubric is:

-10: Communism – Advocates no corporatism, extreme regulation, and full government ownership of industries.
-7.5: Socialism – Supports minimal corporatism, high regulation, and significant government ownership.
-5: Democratic Socialism – Endorses reduced corporatism with strongly regulated capitalism.
-2.5: Regulated Market Economy – Promotes moderate corporatism with balanced regulations.
0: Centrism – Balances regulation and corporate influence without significant bias.
+2.5: Moderately Regulated Capitalism – Leans slightly toward corporatism with moderate government intervention.
+5: Classical Liberalism – Emphasizes moderate to high corporatism with lower regulations.
+7.5: Libertarianism – Advocates low government intervention and high corporate influence.
+10: Radical Laissez-Faire Capitalism – Advocates for minimal to no regulation, with the economy governed entirely by free-market principles and private enterprise.

And even from a Western perspective, “centrism without bias” being right of a regulated market economy sounds like propaganda.

Especially since they use words wrong. Corporatism does not refer to “rule by corporations”, but “rule by incorporated elements like trade and industry unions, and collective bargaining”. For reference, the Nordics are heavily corporatists. No minimum wage, but strong union presence. Are they radical right?

BTW the word they are looking for is corporatocracy, which is defined as a range between excessive corrupution of a state to totalitarian dictatorships, which is a radical right ideology adjacent to fascism.

I get what they are trying to do, which is to try and bridge the two mainstream US public’s thought processes, but in most - arguably more free - countries, politics does not boil down to two parties, two narratives, two publics and two choices. I don’t mind that they do what they do, but it makes zero sense to try and apply it to Israel and Gaza, which itself has more than two competing narratives, which such a binary is too basic to cover.

The bigger problem is that it forces thought into a dichotomy, which eliminates conversation and shuts down reason and understanding, and only lets tribalism and rage prevail.