I also sometimes have a quick look at the front page of the site in question.
I usually go with my gut feeling, but I’ll try putting my criteria into words:
Does the outlet tend to focus on individual stories?
Is the outlet furthering any political narrative in particular?
How do the size of the headline, images and the articles themselves relate to one another?
How dramatic are the headlines?
Do the headlines express any opinions? (of the editorial staff itself, not interviewed politicians or the like)
Which “vibe” do the used images give off? How do they portray the people they depict?
Looking at the front page of the Daily Mail, the site is dominated by pictures of celebrities with letters in all caps. Honestly, that’s all I need to know.
For Alpha News, one of the top stories is about the uncle of George Floyd facing drug charges (how is this relevant to anything? ^^').
One of the trending headlines speaks of “LGBT indoctrination”, whatever that is. The site overall seems to be very openly anti-gay.
Further down I see cartoons making fun of Democrats exclusively.
Ultimately, every news source has some kind of bias, and the transition from factual reporting to propaganda is fluid. There are no empiric criteria to determine which is which.
Let’s take a trip on DMT. Welcome to the Dank Microwave Taco or DMT for short. Anything and everything goes in here. Be sure to share your experience on DMT with your friends, family and social media. @WiggleHard bans nothing and exiles nobody (Dont doxx wolfballs users, no posting of porn/nudes or foot fetish material unless it involves political scandals, no ads for sex sites or dating sites; do that on your own time, no solicitation for pyramid scams, no posting job advertisements unless from official job sites, no posts supporting pedophilia, not all love is love) also: (we cannot allow violations of the patriot act concerning how we speak, no calls for violence, suggesting you are personally harming someone ect. These things are not free speech protected by law but actually against the law and could get the website shut down.) (no spam posting, especially spam posting of what could be considered symbols of hate) examples: guy posting nazi flag 5 times in one day, guy posting “whitey is the devil over and over, im going to use my best judgement on this one rule)
What makes dailymail and alpha news propaganda networks?
I use allsides.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com to form my opinions on news outlets.
I also sometimes have a quick look at the front page of the site in question. I usually go with my gut feeling, but I’ll try putting my criteria into words:
Does the outlet tend to focus on individual stories? Is the outlet furthering any political narrative in particular? How do the size of the headline, images and the articles themselves relate to one another? How dramatic are the headlines? Do the headlines express any opinions? (of the editorial staff itself, not interviewed politicians or the like) Which “vibe” do the used images give off? How do they portray the people they depict?
Looking at the front page of the Daily Mail, the site is dominated by pictures of celebrities with letters in all caps. Honestly, that’s all I need to know.
For Alpha News, one of the top stories is about the uncle of George Floyd facing drug charges (how is this relevant to anything? ^^'). One of the trending headlines speaks of “LGBT indoctrination”, whatever that is. The site overall seems to be very openly anti-gay. Further down I see cartoons making fun of Democrats exclusively.
Ultimately, every news source has some kind of bias, and the transition from factual reporting to propaganda is fluid. There are no empiric criteria to determine which is which.