Daily mail as a quality source??!!

mustrum_ridcully

A._Badger wrote: »

Instead of trying to post a sophomoric jibe, why don't you demonstrate a way in which The Guardian has been less politically predictable than The Daily Mail?

I've already given you two examples (Binyan Mohammed and Iraq). So far, you've yet to offer anything more than a tired cliche.

How about latching onto a cause that will cause embarassment to Blair/Brown and the Labour party?

Members of my family buy it so I've seen for myself how on the rare occassions it does agree with the goverment about something it'll say that the government capitulated to its demands/campaign or that the measures don't do far enough or are flawed.

vivatifosi

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Thats easy. The Guardian presents commentators from across the whole spectrum of political opinion. The Mail does not.

What about Vince Cable's column in the Mail on Sunday? eg...

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-1160291/VINCE-CABLE-Keep-eye-dapper-shy-man-back.html

drc

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Thats easy. The Guardian presents commentators from across the whole spectrum of political opinion. The Mail does not.

I disagree. Why doesn't The Guardian allow a far-right politician like Nick Griffin to have his say if they truly represent all political opinions? They are always very eager to give a platform to Islamist and IRA symapthisers and hear about the 'root causes' of terrorism. Surely they believe in freedom of speech for everyone at the left-wing, liberal Guardian, not just for those whose politics they agree with as we are always told 'freedom of speech' is a left wing doctrine? Besides, letting Nick Griffin have his say will surely expose him for the bigot and racist that he is and he will have done the job of discrediting the BNP politics by himself :rolleyes:

Generali

The best source of news IMO is The Economist. They have a very strong bias about which they are completely open - they promote individual freedom and economic liberalism. Every single article is written with that bias in mind - they even go so far as to publish their style guide which anyone trying to improve their report writing would do well to read (link).

moggylover

vivatifosi wrote: »

What is it with parents and The Mail? Do you think we'll reach a certain age and suddenly the Mail buying biorhythm will kick in?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
God! I do hope not!

A._Badger

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Thats easy. The Guardian presents commentators from across the whole spectrum of political opinion. The Mail does not.

Just not true, I'm afraid. In addition to giving Cable space in recent days, as just pointed out, today they have weblinks to the Huffington Post (!) and a Peter Preston article in the Grauniad.

Reality trumps fantasy, yet again.

StevieJ

A._Badger wrote: »

As I said above, RP, you're ignoring the facts. The Mail is nothing like as predictable as you are pretending.

As to the alleged lack of factual accuracy, I suspect that's nonsense, too. People who dislike the Mail's politics just assume it is factually inaccurate. I've yet to see any convincing evidence that it is any less factually inaccurate than, say, the rabidly pro-Labour Mirror or the right-on Independent.

Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn are comment writers, not news reporters, and should be taken no more seriously as representing their employers' abilities to report facts than Polly Toynbee or Johann Hari.

Just saying something doesn't make it so.

Exactly

moggylover

mustrum_ridcully wrote: »

Also known as Daily Heil, Daily Hate and Daily Wail... all of which describe the paper perfect in my humble opinion

Credit where credit is due the Heil is capable of truly breathtaking hypocrisy... almost as much as perhaps some of the people quoting it who seem to have forgotten how just much that newspaper pushed the BTL market about 6 years ago.

I prefer to call it the Daily Snail as it leaves a nasty smear wherever it goes:D

Jennifer_Jane

stevsand wrote: »

Daily mail the newspaper that backed Hitler,if that does not explain their outlook nothing will.

Is it still backing Hitler? Is it the same editor? Have things changed in the world since 1939? What's today's date?

ninky_2

I came to this thread thinking we were discussing The Daily Mail as a quality. As in "they're a bit Daily Mail".

As someone who works in meedja I've learnt never to use the Mail as a source. Some of it's made up, apparently.