Daily Mail v The Guardian

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/16/4

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-104575 6/Prime-suspects-new-arrests-Antigua-killing-B ritish-honeymooners.html

Why is the Guardian behind in the news that eight new arrests have been made in Antigua?

[anotheoldgit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7564351.stm

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Prime -Suspects-Among-Eight-People-Arrested-In-Conne ction-With-Antigua-Honeymoon-Murders/Article/2 00808315079784?lpos=UK%2BNews_5&lid=ARTICLE_15 079784_%2522Prime%2BSuspects%2522%2BAmong%2BEi ght%2BPeople%2BArrested%2BIn%2BConnection%2BWi th%2BAntigua%2BHoneymoon%2BMurders

Or because the Guardian is trailing behind every other news source, maybe for PC reasons eh?

[China Doll]

I've not read the guardian for a few years now as it was too far to the left even for me. I began reading the Independant instead so if I buy a paper that's now my first choice. I still like the Observer if I get a Sunday paper though.

[Kromovaracun]

DM Link:

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 2:49 AM on 16th August 2008

Guardian:

Damien Francis
The Guardian, Saturday August 16 2008 (no time is given)

The DM might (which just looking at those links is impossible to say as the Guardian didn't include a time of entry) be a few hours ahead but... so what? If the Guardian was several days behind I think you may have a point, but this just seems like childish point-scoring...

[Kromovaracun]

BBC Website:

Page last updated at 20:27 GMT, Friday, 15 August 2008 21:27 UK

Sky:

3:47pm UK, Saturday August 16, 2008

DM seems to be 'trailing' behind the Beeb by your logic, AOG.

Actually, come to think of it, I guess the DM might have updated something (like a spelling error or something like that) between the time you posted it and the time I read it, making it appear later.

There again so might the Guardian....

[anotheoldgit]

Who's accusing who of 'childish point scoring'?

[jno]

if you're actually wanting an answer to your question, it'll be to do with website staffing levels and working practices. Newspapers still concentrate mainly on producing a daily newspaper; they'll put something on their website as and when they can, but it's generally regarded as secondary to printing on paper. That the Mail is a few hours ahead or behind the Guardian means nothing special as neither rushes to 'break' news on the internet.

The BBC on the other hand does put a lot of money, manpower and effort into its website and I'd expect it to get the big stories before any of the newspapers. Sure enough, as Kromovaracun has pointed out, that's exactly what happened.

[Lucy Thomas]

Personally I wouldn't wipe my backside with the Guarniad.

[NiceCupOfTea]

But you'd wipe it with the Mail I gather? Good on you! So would I (as it's about all it's good for).

[Lucy Thomas]

No, I would read it and find out what's really going on in this country.

[Quinlad]

After you've wiped your backside with it I hope? It actually comes into its own when it has fecal matter smeared across the news pages.

And the pungent smell causes the reader to pull that sneer of pained disdain that seems to be compulsory for Mail readers as they take in the words 'immigrant' or 'benefits' or 'Muslims'.

But do wash your hands.