When someone wonders about the the journalistic bona fides of an outlet, it is often because they want to know if the information being presented is accurate and balanced.

For example, do they mention that the bill has a carveout for First Amendment protected speech? I didn't see that mentioned, but it's right there in the bill, below the definition of "material support" (which they also don't cite).

These definitions may be applied in ways that are not fair by the government, but any journalistic outlet worth its salt would include them in their writeup. It seems that this article is more meant to raise alarm and paint the other side as extremists, rather than inform the readership about what has actually been proposed (with all its warts).