Sorry to bag on you, but this one’s a bit of a hobby horse for me. The Washington Post published an article describing various Russian propaganda efforts, and referred to it as “fake news” because that’s the new dumb word for propaganda. For that article they had four sources, one being PropOrNot, and in it they described propaganda efforts based on info from their sources which they linked to. One of those sources, PropOrNot, did post a list of sites they believed either were Russian propaganda sites, or sites that they claimed repeated information from propaganda sites (not a blacklist, BTW), and that list was garbage. PropOrNot posted that list a day after the WaPo article went live. Nowhere in the article did WaPo name any of PropOrNot’s sources (which hadn’t been posted when it was written). In response a deflection campaign appeared about the WaPo article focusing on lying about the WaPo article saying it was a list of sites. This reached a fever pitch and WaPo put in an update clarifying that PropOrNot pretty much sucked. WaPo did blow it in using one crap source, but they did not post a blacklist. WaPo was one of the few papers that actually did a decent job during this election, have been far better than the WSJ or NYT in weaseliness when writing about Trump, and seeing them being attacked with this completely baseless BS is something I find pretty disturbing.
Here’s the original WaPo article for verification:
