That was my assumption. Not breathing for an unknown amount of time following a lightning strike. I imagine it would be noteworthy for the article if she regained consciousness and later died.
Ok, but now you are assuming intent of the news desk still without evidence. I get where you're coming from, but without actual evidence showing a clear organizational bias for a certain narrative, making that assumption isn't anymore valid than assuming the actual reporters intent.
And again, furthering a viewpoint does not make propaganda. Virtually all news is going to further one viewpoint or another, even if the organization and writer are 100% unbiased. Facts usually don't maintain a neutral ground on a topic.
You've kind of arrived at the point while ignoring it.
Propaganda requires intent. You are correct that we can't know their intent directly, therefore we can only use evidence to try to determine the authors intent.
Admittedly I did not pick the article a part, but I saw no tell-tale signs of propaganda. It was primarily interviews with doctors. I saw no signs of manipulative wording, attempts at persuasion, or unsupported opinions of the writer.
While I can't definitively say this article is not propaganda, it probably isn't.
So it's not propaganda until you can provide good evidence that it is.
I think you might be using too broad a definition of propaganda. The result of influencing opinion does not make something propaganda. Propaganda needs some intent to persuade or push an agenda.
The article might be propaganda, largely that depends on the motivations for writing and publishing it. But the fact that the content of the article might change people's opinions does not make it propaganda.
How does one get these jobs.