How The Daily Mail Works

[AB Editor]

Morning,

The Mail is a much loved paper round here, so I thought you might be interested in a story of what really goes on:

http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286

(This is the DM website, not the paper necessarily)

Journalism has never been a pretty field to be working in - and I always find it interesting that some people have this idea that journalism is somehow noble - but reading about their processes (which are very Buzzfeed) is still a bit of a shock :)

All the best,

Ed

[anotheoldgit]

Yet another anti-Daily Mail thread, but from the Ed, really that is surprising.

Why don't he make the other AnswerBank anti Daily Mailers happy and ban the paper from the site.

Didn't I once read that the Daily Mail was partially responsible for creating AB?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // Yet another anti-Daily Mail thread, but from the Ed, really that is surprising.

Why don't he make the other AnswerBank anti Daily Mailers happy and ban the paper from the site.

Didn't I once read that the Daily Mail was partially responsible for creating AB? //

I am always curious as to why you defend the Mail whenever and wherever it comes under (usually deserved!) attack.

I have been a Mail reader for over forty years, but have never felt personally required to defend its policies or its features, and I am mystified about why you do - can you enlighten me? Thank you.

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // Didn't I once read that the Daily Mail was partially responsible for creating AB? //

Not directly - the company that set up AB initially belonged to the same parent company as The Mail, so there is no direct link as such, either then or now.

[anotheoldgit]

Thank you Ed

[jackthehat]

For quite some while I have been aware that many of it's 'Showbiz' interviews have been lifted verbatim, if not in their entirity, from the Radio Times......and never with any attribution.

[hc4361]

I think the policies described in that article are fairly typical of online news sites. It is a fast paced, attention grabbing medium reliant on advertisers and if a site is ignoring a 'hot' topic they are going to miss out.

If they get it badly wrong, an article can be quickly removed and hopefully forgotten about. Celebs and people in power know that complaining about an inaccuracy can bring much more attention to it than if they had kept quiet.

[hc4361]

andy, didn't the Mail use AnswerBank for its printed question and answer section? I can't remember what it was called.

[andy-hughes]

hc4361 // andy, didn't the Mail use AnswerBank for its printed question and answer section? I can't remember what it was called. //

Not that I am aware, no.

[hc4361]

Oh

[EDDIE51]

The 'Hard copy' version of the 'Wail' is no better, and the 'Express' or 'Getsworse' as Private Eye used to call it is very little better.
I stick to 'The Times' as the least biased of the papers.

[Booldawg]

News is news. If its true then it doesn't take a mastermind to strip away the political slant to see the story for what it is.

Personally, I love the fact that the internet has allowed us access to other news items that wouldn't be seen in print elsewhere.

[Gromit]

We are all used to seeing videos on the Mail website. All those are usually copyrighted to the author and YouTube, LiveLeak etc.
What the Mail does is steal those videos and charges advertisers to put an advert before the video. The original author of the material get no hits on YouTube (so no money) while the Mail gets the advertising money.

They could embed a youtube video like we do on AB and the original author gets hits, but the Mail prefers to steal the material instead.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

/// but the Mail prefers to steal the material instead. ///

Slanting the news, sensationalising their headlines, telling lies, and stealing, whatever next, why is this newspaper still allowed to be published?

[AB Editor]

AOG: "Yet another anti-Daily Mail thread, but from the Ed, really that is surprising."

No it's not. I quite like the DM. I think they're excellent at spinning stories - it's what they're there for.

The way they're producing their online copy is exactly the same as many other outlets - and somewhat similar to AB. I thought it might be a insight for some who don't know how this business is done.

The writer of the piece on gawker is probably anti-mail, but he did work there, so maybe take his opinions within the context of that?

Cheer up, not everything is against you :)

[Marshwarble]

"Yet another anti-Daily Mail thread" says AOG in the second post in the thread. I think today's headline sums it up: "Pensioners (who read the Daily Mail?) are being conned by Muslim extremists (who don't).

[Canary42]

A bit naughty of you Ed to troll like that - you must have known AOG would bite immediately LOL.

[anotheoldgit]

/// A bit naughty of you Ed to troll like that - you must have known AOG would bite immediately LOL. ///

See the type of thing that you have started Ed?

[Zacs-Master]

Wind him up and watch him go.............

whizzz, whizzz, bump, spin, whizzz......

[anotheoldgit]

A B Editor

/// Cheer up, not everything is against you :) ///

Where have I heard that before, could it be that you post under different usernames? :0)

[Zacs-Master]

AOG, there are no other posters on here....just you and the Ed.

Ever seen The Matrix?