3 ms·

> ... more reputable source ... Sorry for the sidetrack, but this comment struck me as odd. perhaps it was just a poor choice of words. FWIW, the last thing I

by ddoran 9y ago

> ... more reputable source ... Sorry for the sidetrack, but this comment struck me as odd. perhaps it was just a poor choice of words. FWIW, the last thing I thought I'd ever do was defend the Daily Mail. While I fundamentally disagree with the Daily Mail's politics and abhor their celebrity obsession, it is a 121 year-old newspaper with the second highest circulation in the UK. I haven't heard their reputation questioned before. No more than any other news source, that is.

amiga-workbench 9y ago
Certainly Not News ranks about the same as the Daily Mail personally.
dijit 9y ago
Their reputation as a source of news is absurdly poor in the United Kingdom, please do not conflate circulation and age with being factual or reputable. Insidious companies can continue existing for a long time.
cnewey 9y ago
As others have said - many people (quite rightly) have concerns about supporting the Daily Mail by giving it clicks, eyeball time, and advertising revenue. Partly because of their reputation of being rather unpleasantly right-wing when it comes to immigration, the economy, women's rights, etc; but also partly because their reputation as a truthful source of news is resoundingly poor (as evidenced by the DM being disallowed as a source on Wikipedia, their reputation for publishing embellished or downright untrue stories, etc). [edit]: After doing a bit more digging, it also turns out that CNN Money often publishes companies' press releases almost verbatim. Oops.