Yes, but there are also high traffic sites disseminating US propaganda, corporatist propaganda, etc. The idea of journalistic integrity is pretty much dead at

Yes, but there are also high traffic sites disseminating US propaganda, corporatist propaganda, etc. 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.