In this fake news era, Im glad for the intercept and greenwalds journalistic integrity.
Yes, it's true that the PropOrNot site is new.
Yes, it's true that the people behind PropOrNot are anonymous.
Yes, it's true that the Washington Post's article on PropOrNot didn't seem very rigorous.
None of this speaks to whether sites like Drudge, Zero Hedge, Alex Jones, etc. are actively disseminating Russian propaganda.
PropOrNot lists eight steps to manually identify propaganda and disinformation, and they seem pretty useful to me.
The article was based on many sources, despite the Intercept's characterization of it. PropOrNot is just one of many:
I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"
Well put and essential; thanks
> I'm very wary of this attempt to silence "fake news"
But then the comment seems to slide into a propaganda talking point. 1) It's not being "silenced", just identified, and such exaggeration or hyperbole is a standard technique; 2) it presupposes this extreme relativism where there is no fake news; and 3) criticizing news sources is a very common, normal part of a health marketplace of ideas. Look at the criticism the NYT and Fox take, for example.
The idea of journalistic integrity is pretty much dead at this point, given the monetary value of tapping into/catering to people's echo chambers/confirmation bias.
So is it possible that news sites that distrust certain elements of government will run stories that affirm that distrust? Certainly.
But we also don't really know the degree of what criteria were being used to measure this dissemination. What if the trackers labeled any of the primary source material from the email hacks as "propaganda"? Then anyone that discussed the contents and not only the source of the hacks (clearly the government's spin of the story) would be considered propagandists or "useful idiots."
Further, there's a huge difference between unsubstantiated fake news propaganda and stories that check out factually but have an agenda. We have no idea if the latter was included in the list of "propagandists."
There is a list we should put together for news sites. Namely, a list of which sites do a decent job of verifying their stories before publishing, and which ones have issues with accuracy. But that list should apply without regard to agenda. The Intercept piece rightly calls out the Post for being a mouthpiece for the WMD agenda a decade ago. That was certainly an instance where facts mattered, and tough questions should have been asked before publishing, but weren't. We need to demand greater accountability from our news sources, but obscure blacklists with obscure methodology and backing is not what's needed.
We need a (or several) "Snopes" for news, paid for by publishers/aggregators and preferred by readers over competitive publishers/aggregators who skimp on story verification. Without a solution like that, I have a hard time seeing anything change.