Technology0 min ago
Is Wikipedia Right To Single Out The Daily Mail As An 'unreliable Source'?
https:/
Surely most news outlets now should be treated with suspicion? The Daily Mail may have its faults, but surely it's no worse than other Fleet Street publications?
Surely most news outlets now should be treated with suspicion? The Daily Mail may have its faults, but surely it's no worse than other Fleet Street publications?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is what Gromit wrote on a recent thread:-
The press has always been biased. And Governments have always controlled the news.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.
No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.
All that isn't entirely new, we have had it for 25 years
The press has always been biased. And Governments have always controlled the news.
Until now. The World Wide Web has democratised the news. Which sounds like a good thing, but isn't.
There are no longer any filters. The Foreign Offices message is swamped until no one sees it. The newspapers' editorial lines are contantly being derailed or rerouted by the uncontrolled electronic media.
No one controls what we can read, and no one controls what we can write. We are subjected to far more nonsense than ever before. All kinds of bonkers opinions are out there, and most people do not have the capacity to interpret what they see and cannot detect what is bogus. So some very dangerous ideas get traction and become widely belueved even though they are not true.
All that isn't entirely new, we have had it for 25 years
It is an unreliable source. It purposely omits facts that are inconvenient to its agenda. I have been on this site 11 years, and most of that time has been spent spotting shortcomings in the numerous links to the Daily Mail.
It is no stranger to the libel Courts, and would be it trouble more often if they did not fortunately have its editor as chief of the newspapers' self policing organisation, the Press Complaints Commission.
It is no stranger to the libel Courts, and would be it trouble more often if they did not fortunately have its editor as chief of the newspapers' self policing organisation, the Press Complaints Commission.
wiki has its own 'methodology'
that is they say what they think is good
( and hang the evidence )
some articles say that there is research in it ( surely that is cutting edge and not a disadvantage ? )
and others say that there ar no secondary sources which is a bad thing ( surely primary sources are better ?)
other articles about famous men
are in fact - bio-vees - biography and CVs written erm by themselves- scok puppetry at its worst
" John Smith tries to meld the best from Dickens and narrative with the lyricism of Tennyson and constructs a simple yet heart-rending account of ...."
In fact his only publication has been vanity printing etc
that is they say what they think is good
( and hang the evidence )
some articles say that there is research in it ( surely that is cutting edge and not a disadvantage ? )
and others say that there ar no secondary sources which is a bad thing ( surely primary sources are better ?)
other articles about famous men
are in fact - bio-vees - biography and CVs written erm by themselves- scok puppetry at its worst
" John Smith tries to meld the best from Dickens and narrative with the lyricism of Tennyson and constructs a simple yet heart-rending account of ...."
In fact his only publication has been vanity printing etc
I must admit I wouldnt read the Mail unless it was free but then all media otlets are biased including the one that should not be - The BBC.
I must confess I often do read the Guardian in an attempt to balance and find some truth between them. Guardian alos has it's issues too.
As pointed out above though this is very amusing coming from one of the most unreliable sources of information.
I must confess I often do read the Guardian in an attempt to balance and find some truth between them. Guardian alos has it's issues too.
As pointed out above though this is very amusing coming from one of the most unreliable sources of information.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
News2 mins ago
Body & Soul3 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.