Honestly, that comparison is very disingenuous just from the information on the site you just linked:

Fox News: "Overall, we rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories that later must be retracted after being widely shared."

Bellingcat: "we rate Bellingcat Left-Center biased based on story selection and positions that moderately favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."

These are vastly, vastly different forms and scales of "bias." They are nearly incomparable.

From your source, Fox is further right than Bellingcat is left, and Bellingcat is much better on factual reporting. I understand what you're saying about getting news about conflicts from a particular point of view, but your source seems to contradict the analogy.

Trying to compare Bellingcat, which publishes things like investigations into the downing of MH17, to Fox News. That is terrible.

Fox News has entertainment departments, fought in court to have Tucker Carlson lie to his followers with impunity. They republished incitement to ramming attacks.

Bellingcat.. They just do investigations.

If you want to try to break things down into black and white left vs right, at least try to do it with comparable organizations. Or even better, try to refute the substance of the article instead of going to a media bias site to see how you feel they land on the political spectrum.

Even the site you linked has them listed as "left-center" with "high factual reporting." How is this grounds to outright dismiss them? The slightest degree of "leftness" makes you want to exclude sources? Do you have any factual reason to be doing this, or is this your personal bias towards right wing content forcing you to seek means to exclude information you don't like the looks of?