4 ms·

This is the Pavlovian-style trained response every time the popular tabloid, the Daily Mail is mentioned here. It's what it is. Get over it. Of course it's plea

This is the Pavlovian-style trained response every time the popular tabloid, the Daily Mail is mentioned here. It's what it is. Get over it. Of course it's pleasant to feel a cut above the six million who buy the print copy and the thirty million plus who read it online but please bear in mind it's not aimed at your level of readership. Good however that you manage to scan it most days so that you can be assured it's a work of fiction. Personally I'd give it a miss and keep to the more subtle works of fiction in the upmarket section of the press.

ben_w 6y ago
> it's not aimed at your level of readership The reading level is no problem. My concern isn’t the press ELI5-ing 3D printers as being “like Star Trek style replicators”. Make everything as easy to read and understand as possible! My first concern is when things are invented whole-cloth, or misrepresented badly enough they might as well be, and when corrections are either not forthcoming or only happen after legal action: https://listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-stories-in-the-daily-mail/ https://listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-storie... My second concern is when the publication contradicts itself, which DM is famous for with regard to what causes and cures cancer: https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ I am far from the only one to feel justified in being so dismissive of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Daily_Mail_RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliabl... > Personally I'd give it a miss and keep to the more subtle works of fiction in the upmarket section of the press. Thinking of Trek-tech and upmarket publications, I have had a similar attitude towards New Scientist ever since the EM drive was on the front cover. This problem isn’t just a Daily Mail problem, but the story this thread is attached to is about the DM, so they’re the ones I’m focusing my criticism on.

ben_w 6y ago

> it's not aimed at your level of readership The reading level is no problem. My concern isn’t the press ELI5-ing 3D printers as being “like Star Trek style replicators”. Make everything as easy to read and understand as possible! My first concern is when things are invented whole-cloth, or misrepresented badly enough they might as well be, and when corrections are either not forthcoming or only happen after legal action: https://listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-stories-in-the-daily-mail/ https://listverse.com/2015/06/23/10-egregiously-false-storie... My second concern is when the publication contradicts itself, which DM is famous for with regard to what causes and cures cancer: https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ I am far from the only one to feel justified in being so dismissive of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Daily_Mail_RfC https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliabl... > Personally I'd give it a miss and keep to the more subtle works of fiction in the upmarket section of the press. Thinking of Trek-tech and upmarket publications, I have had a similar attitude towards New Scientist ever since the EM drive was on the front cover. This problem isn’t just a Daily Mail problem, but the story this thread is attached to is about the DM, so they’re the ones I’m focusing my criticism on.