Fake news is a real concern — I’ve written about it myself in multiple places — and deserves serious attention. I recommend this analysis by Jeff Jarvis and John Borthwick, for example. But the concern about the authenticity of our news sources can also be used to discredit marginalized and progressive voices. This is not theoretical: it just happened.
The Washington Post’s Craig Timberg published this story: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say” (which is currently on the Daily Kos frontpage and second in the “most shared” column). It gives significant credence to PropOrNot, which claims to identify “Russian propaganda” by identifying sites that echo pro-Russian themes. It is run anonymously, and WaPo itself cites them on condition of anonymity.
So who is on the PropOrNot blacklist? It includes truth-out, a non-profit news source founded in 2001 (see their Annual Report for background on the organization and some of the stories they broke recently). Their Board of Advisors has included Dean Baker, Robert Reich and the late Howard Zinn.
The blacklist also includes truthdig, a journalistic startup (see their Wikipedia article) that has been around since 2005 and that is edited by Robert Scheer. It, too, has published many notable progressive voices and is not known for conspiracy mongering (or Russian propaganda, for that matter).
Many of the sites on the list are indeed nutty (ZeroHedge, Infowars, Drudge) or engage in routine left-wing conspiracy mongering (Black Agenda Report [1]). That, however, does not mean that they represent some kind of unified pro-Russian propaganda bloc, and the “pro-Russian” smear is the worst way to criticize people who engage in tabloid journalism or conspiracy mongering, because that smear enlightens nobody and can be weaponized against anyone.
The way to fight fake news is not to give credence to anonymous trolls compiling blacklists. It’s to collaborate in verification and support for news sources that have a record of applying consistent editorial standards. That is the goal of my project to review nonprofit media as well: for each site, I look at funding sources, editorial standards, track record, and so on. If you want to help, drop me a line at <eloquence AT gmail DOT com>.
[Hannah Gais, a writer for The Baffler and other alternative publications, wrote an analysis similar to this one here.]
[1] See their Obama/Clinton Created ISIS story as an example which reaches dramatic conclusions based on flimsy evidence.