3 ms·
The problem here is that this aversion to sources which have been caught making up things is mostly limited to "conservative" sources. While sources like the Da
by the_third_wave 5y ago
The problem here is that this aversion to sources which have been caught making up things is mostly limited to "conservative" sources. While sources like the Daily Mail are considered to be off-limits there is no rule against using the New York Times or the Washington Post, both of whom have been caught making up things. This is what Sanger reacts to, not the mere fact that there are sources which are deemed to be unreliable.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ambirex 5y agoExcept the NYT and Wapo have a much better history of correcting mistakes. Comparing Daily Mail and NY Post to other serious news organizations is really an apple to oranges comparison.
- the_third_wave 5y agoIt is not, all these publications follow their own ideological agenda. The Daily Mail is a different type of publication - a tabloid, publishing loads of "celebrity" nonsense - than WaPo and NYT which are more comparable to The Times (of London) but when you look at their ideological agenda they are no more radical than the NYT or WaPo. This is the comparison made here. Have a look at the list of "reliable sources" as defined by Wikipedia [1] and decide for yourself whether there is an unbalance between the number of green (which translates to "reliable") "progressive" and "conservative" publications. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...