4 ms·
That's an interesting suggestion. May I ask why? I really don't know anything about it. The hesitation I had with sharing a daily mail link was "Is it accurate
by sillysaurusx 5y ago
That's an interesting suggestion. May I ask why? I really don't know anything about it.
The hesitation I had with sharing a daily mail link was "Is it accurate?" rather than whether they deserve impressions. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be a bad idea to support them.
- ftyers 5y agoThey're widely (although not universally) considered to be irredeemable in England after an article they published in 1934 entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".
- swores 5y agoWikipedia is probably a good place to learn a handful of examples and go further down the rabbit hole from there if interested, starting with these sections: 7 Libel lawsuits 7.1 Successful lawsuits against the Mail 7.2 Unsuccessful lawsuits 7.3 Legal action by the Daily Mail 8 Criticism 8.1 Racism accusations 8.2 Homophobia accusations 8.3 Sexism accusations 8.4 Paying for footage under investigation 8.5 Byline removal 8.6 Sensationalism 8.7 Reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail Although of course the wikipedia page just has a small number of examples, I'd say that the first words of those 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6 subheaders above, and lack of 8.7, do a decent job of surmising the Daily Mail.