Criticizing PropOrNot’s totally reasonable, their model’s terrible (their idea of what’s influenced by Russian propaganda seems very loose), and there are serious issue with their lack of transparency. Some of the sites on their list are especially questionable.
Criticizing WaPo for writing an article describing various researchers looking at Russian online propaganda/media manipulation in which they used four different researchers, linked to their research/info to allow verification, and in which one section referred to a bunk source could be done well. Unfortunately there was a response from some left-wing media sources that lied about the article naming names (which they never did), lied about them publishing a “blacklist” (which is simply false), and misrepresented an article covering many various topics to suggest it was only about thing, which aren’t valid criticisms at all, esp. when WaPo added an editor’s note/retraction on their article to explain issues with PropOrNot as a source. So there could be legit. criticisms of the WaPo, but much of the propaganda that came (starting with Greenwald who began the disinfo campaign) wasn’t legitimate at all and many of th responses were explicitly deceitful (claims of naming names, claims of blacklists, misframing the article as being centrally about PropOrNot etc.)
