5 ms·
The Daily Mail should not be considered a reliable source. Best to disregard anything from there. IIRC, Wikipedia takes this approach.
by mnd999 4y ago
The Daily Mail should not be considered a reliable source. Best to disregard anything from there. IIRC, Wikipedia takes this approach.
- lionkor 4y agoWhy is this? Is their journalism just that bad?
- tailspin2019 4y agoJust my subjective opinion… but I wouldn’t even call it journalism.
- codeduck 4y agoThe kindest thing that could be said about them is that they are a tabloid.
- JimDabell 4y agoThey will write absolute fiction and publish it as fact. For instance, they prepared two articles for the outcome of a high profile murder case, one for each verdict. Then they published the wrong one temporarily when the verdict was announced. Anybody can make a mistake though, right? Well, in this case, the wrong article included quotes about the guilty verdict (that didn’t happen) and detailed descriptions of how people reacted to the verdict. These were all completely made up before the verdict had even been announced. https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-dailymail https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc...
- dawnerd 4y agoMight surprise you to learn most large publications do this and will use placeholder (or they're supposed to be at least) quotes. Not going to defend Daily Mail though, they're absolute trash and deserve the criticism. Of all the content I've encountered it was very, very clear what was placeholder, even if it was published you'd know something was off. I've also seen a publication that had safeguards against accidental publication if there was any placeholder copy in the content.
- Gibbon1 4y agoIf you had a King Salomonesque Dictator he'd require they submit all stories to the Ministry of Delay before publishing.
- formerly_proven 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...