Has Pay-for-Play Propaganda Successfully Infiltrated Twitter?

There are currently thousands of propaganda websites masquerading as local news websites across the United States, as the New York Times reported in October 2020 and the Columbia Journalism Review reported in August 2020.

The network of websites spells disaster for the news ecosystem on a number of levels, especially if the sites receive a lot of attention. As Renée Diresta articulated in this WIRED piece, there is an important distinction between “free speech” and “free reach.” Free speech entails Brian Timpone’s ability to write and publish “propaganda ordered up by dozens of think tanks, political operatives, corporate executives and public-relations professionals” (NYT). For example, consider this article from March.

A hotel owner by the name of Monty Bennett paid to publish the article, as part of a broader effort to lobby for hotel stimulus amidst the pandemic. Merely publishing the article constitutes free speech, but the bigger issue is free reach — how far the article spreads and how many people it misleads. In this case, Monty Bennett did not seem to get much attention when he tweeted out the article he paid to publish.

But what about the other 1,200+ websites? After reading the reports from Columbia Journalism Review and the New York Times, I was curious about how much attention they were receiving on social media platforms, especially now that we are days away from the election. I am still collecting some data about the topic, but one of my initial findings seemed important to share right away.

While Twitter has suspended many accounts associated with the propaganda websites, some accounts have amassed sizable audiences