I'd like a little more information on how they decided on their list of 200 sites plus a little bit of evidence before I accept that list.
They state, "Please note that our criteria are behavioral" which is a broken link.
"If they meet these criteria, they are at the very least acting as bona-fide "useful idiots" of the Russian intelligence services, and are worthy of further scrutiny." - by that criteria every news source that picked up a fake story and ran with it.
Their example (http://www.propornot.com/2016/10/an-example-of-manual-propaganda_31.html) is such an extreme case that it doesn't help increase my trust.
Updating - I'm not the only one: http://www.alternet.org/media/washington-post-promotes-shadowy-website-accuses-200-publications-russian-propaganda-plants