4 ms·

The daily mail is a few steps below Fox news in terms of accuracy and unbias reporting. They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. They're not a s

The daily mail is a few steps below Fox news in terms of accuracy and unbias reporting. They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. They're not a source of anything. Please don't post them here. (Edit:) Here is Full facts review of the claims (which apparently don't appear in the paper's peer review version): https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-claims/ https://fullfact.org/health/richard-dearlove-coronavirus-cla...

junon 5y ago
First off, I agree with your overall assessment. > They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. Okay. I get it. Hitler was bad. His ideas were bad. His methods were bad. We can talk about how bad Hitler was all day. But a lot of companies _back then_ had ties to the Nazi party. Things change, companies lay off and hire on, people learn. Let's try to eliminate this trend of disregarding anything someone says due to something that happened almost 100 years ago. IBM supported the Nazi party. They're now a leader in quantum research. Volkswagen is one of the largest producers in Germany and was literally created by them. They now actively support their LGBT members at work. BMW, same thing. Bayer manufactured a bunch of the chemicals used in the holocaust. Now they are a large producer of life-saving medication. There are many reasons not to like Daily Mail. Let's not reduce ourselves to obsolete association just to cop-out of an otherwise valid point.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The reason I usually include "the paper that supported Hitler" is that I don't think the daily mail have changed. They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Its like if IBM refused to make anything except for holocaust management tech... Maybe its unhelpful? It just amazes me anyone will touch the DM with a barge pole...
  - junon 5y ago
    > They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Can you cite these claims?
    - TomWhitwell 5y ago
      https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-european-commission-report-claiming-tabloids-push-hate-speech/ https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-europea...
    - ReflectedImage 5y ago
      In the UK it is widely known to be utter trash. Here's a song about it written in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI Song's punchline: "It's absolutely true because I read about it in the daily mail /s"
- dTal 5y ago
  Bayer made lifesaving medicine back then too. Bayer's crime was of corporate amorality and I see no evidence that they have changed at all in that regard. As one of the world's largest chemical manufacturers I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes - maybe even are inching into being one themselves, given their acquisition of Monsanto.
  - junon 5y ago
    > I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes This is speculation - you have no sources to back this up.
    - dTal 5y ago
      Given the well-documented tendency of large corporations - and this corporation in particular - to not give two shits about ethics, I'm not entirely sure which direction the burden of proof lies. However they are certainly supplying China, a regime widely acknowledged to be committing genocide. Whether their chemicals are directly used for genocidal purposes seems academic? They do not care either way.
- frabbit 5y ago
  It is not just a case of "back then". The Daily Mail spreads misinformation and hate propaganda right now. It is by any definition a low-quality source.
mxmilkiib 5y ago
https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY "Fuck the Daily Mail" Also, the Metro, the free UK tabloid found on buses etc is also produced by the Mail Group, so I only use it to wrap my compost in for the street side bin.
atatatat 5y ago
I'm supposed to trust one of the masses that doesn't understand that bias and biased are two different words?
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  I think you're confusing your tenses? But don't believe me, click the link I provided before your comment. It's all there in black and white. Or just Google "the paper that supported Hitler". https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sxsrf=ALeKk03oEYYJp4fVdlHu_ib7FRT3yaKPig%3A1622306599769&ei=J2-yYKa5LoimUITclOgH&oq=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6BAgAEEdQ9B5YgEFg90JoAHABeACAAeYBiAGYA5IBBTAuMS4xmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+...

junon 5y ago

First off, I agree with your overall assessment. > They're quite literally the paper that supported Hitler. Okay. I get it. Hitler was bad. His ideas were bad. His methods were bad. We can talk about how bad Hitler was all day. But a lot of companies _back then_ had ties to the Nazi party. Things change, companies lay off and hire on, people learn. Let's try to eliminate this trend of disregarding anything someone says due to something that happened almost 100 years ago. IBM supported the Nazi party. They're now a leader in quantum research. Volkswagen is one of the largest producers in Germany and was literally created by them. They now actively support their LGBT members at work. BMW, same thing. Bayer manufactured a bunch of the chemicals used in the holocaust. Now they are a large producer of life-saving medication. There are many reasons not to like Daily Mail. Let's not reduce ourselves to obsolete association just to cop-out of an otherwise valid point.

LatteLazy 5y ago
The reason I usually include "the paper that supported Hitler" is that I don't think the daily mail have changed. They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Its like if IBM refused to make anything except for holocaust management tech... Maybe its unhelpful? It just amazes me anyone will touch the DM with a barge pole...
- junon 5y ago
  > They sell the exact same racist, xenophobic BS they did back then today. Can you cite these claims?
  - TomWhitwell 5y ago
    https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-european-commission-report-claiming-tabloids-push-hate-speech/ https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-and-mail-named-in-europea...
  - ReflectedImage 5y ago
    In the UK it is widely known to be utter trash. Here's a song about it written in 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI Song's punchline: "It's absolutely true because I read about it in the daily mail /s"
dTal 5y ago
Bayer made lifesaving medicine back then too. Bayer's crime was of corporate amorality and I see no evidence that they have changed at all in that regard. As one of the world's largest chemical manufacturers I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes - maybe even are inching into being one themselves, given their acquisition of Monsanto.
- junon 5y ago
  > I would be shocked if they do not still supply oppressive regimes This is speculation - you have no sources to back this up.
  - dTal 5y ago
    Given the well-documented tendency of large corporations - and this corporation in particular - to not give two shits about ethics, I'm not entirely sure which direction the burden of proof lies. However they are certainly supplying China, a regime widely acknowledged to be committing genocide. Whether their chemicals are directly used for genocidal purposes seems academic? They do not care either way.
frabbit 5y ago
It is not just a case of "back then". The Daily Mail spreads misinformation and hate propaganda right now. It is by any definition a low-quality source.

mxmilkiib 5y ago

https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY https://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY "Fuck the Daily Mail" Also, the Metro, the free UK tabloid found on buses etc is also produced by the Mail Group, so I only use it to wrap my compost in for the street side bin.

atatatat 5y ago

I'm supposed to trust one of the masses that doesn't understand that bias and biased are two different words?

LatteLazy 5y ago
I think you're confusing your tenses? But don't believe me, click the link I provided before your comment. It's all there in black and white. Or just Google "the paper that supported Hitler". https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sxsrf=ALeKk03oEYYJp4fVdlHu_ib7FRT3yaKPig%3A1622306599769&ei=J2-yYKa5LoimUITclOgH&oq=%22the+paper+that+supported+hitler%22&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAM6BAgAEEdQ9B5YgEFg90JoAHABeACAAeYBiAGYA5IBBTAuMS4xmAEAoAEByAEIwAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=%22the+paper+that+supported+...