Sorry, no mea culpa.

If you think being an unrepentant liar is good for your cred, fill your boots, I guess.

It should be noted that despite no non-partisan fact checkers are listed on MBFC’s site as raising concerns about the The Cradle’s credibility, Van Zandt has arbitrarily placed it in the “Factual Reporting: Mixed” and “Credibility: Medium” categories. The concerns he posits about The Cradle’s 'lack of transparency, poor sourcing," and one-sidedness clearly apply to the weird right-wing guy who makes these opaque decisions about journalistic value.

'I don't understand how it works so it's stupid!'

1. The Cradle is a rag that's been banned by Wikipedia for publishing conspiracy theories and for (gasp!) poor sourcing.
2. If you had read their methodology, you'd know that MBFC wasn't being arbitrary as lack of transparency and the impact are clearly defined:

A source is considered to lack transparency if it fails to provide an ‘About’ page or a clear description of its mission. Transparency is further compromised if the ownership of the source is not openly disclosed, including the identification of the parent company and key individuals involved. Additionally, the absence of information about major donors, funding sources, or general revenue generation methods contributes to this lack of transparency. It is essential for the source to at least disclose the country, state, or city of operation and the name of the person responsible (such as the editor). While providing a physical address is not mandatory, meeting some of these transparency criteria is important. Inadequate transparency typically results in the source’s factual reporting rating being reduced by one or two levels, depending on the extent of the shortfall.

Credibility Levels:

• High Credibility: A score of 6 or above.
• Medium Credibility: A score between 3-5 points. Sources lacking an ‘About’ page or ownership information are automatically rated as Medium Credibility.
• Low Credibility: A score of 0-2 points. Sources rated as Questionable, Conspiracy, or Pseudoscience are automatically classified as Low Credibility.

This is from the report:

The Cradle lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership. The domain is registered in the United States.

Who could've seen that rating coming?

Methodical is the opposite of arbitrary. The reason it seems arbitrary to you is that you don't understand it. As a bare minimum to be critical of MBFC you should understand how it works, understand their methodology, and probably have read their Wikipedia page. Bonus points for seeing what high quality research says about them (spoiler alert: it says you're wrong). You're demanding that people take very seriously your misinterpretations and assumptions about something you don't understand. How is that a reasonable request?