Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News0 min ago
Daily Mail Deliberately Misreports Climate Change
32 Answers
http://
A quick summary:
- IPCC releases report in 2007 stating that the planet was warming by .13 celsius per decade
- Daily Mail launches tirade about how inaccurate the IPCC reports are, because they predicted .2 degrees. This was completely wrong and required editing on their website, but the Mail continued to stick to its "IPCC is totally unreliable" line anyway.
How long are we going to let this foul excuse of a rag continue to exist? Everybody knows just how much they cherrypick, manipulate and distort information. Everybody knows that these people care about their own poltitical agenda first and the truth second. Everybody knows they are unreliable.
Why are they still in business?
A quick summary:
- IPCC releases report in 2007 stating that the planet was warming by .13 celsius per decade
- Daily Mail launches tirade about how inaccurate the IPCC reports are, because they predicted .2 degrees. This was completely wrong and required editing on their website, but the Mail continued to stick to its "IPCC is totally unreliable" line anyway.
How long are we going to let this foul excuse of a rag continue to exist? Everybody knows just how much they cherrypick, manipulate and distort information. Everybody knows that these people care about their own poltitical agenda first and the truth second. Everybody knows they are unreliable.
Why are they still in business?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. 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.
I suppose that's really what I'm asking... I genuinely understand why so many people buy it when a sizable portion of them must know how unreliable it is. My own mother buys it in full knowledge of the fact that its journalism is simply not good enough to be trustworthy, and I just don't really understand why.
And the Guardian has been known to tell porkies too.
The press in general will twist things to suit the current mantra they have. ALL of them.
I did find a good use for a Guardian once when working on a site and we ran out of bog roll. Some right-on person was visiting and left it on the side by mistake, very handy for me !
The press in general will twist things to suit the current mantra they have. ALL of them.
I did find a good use for a Guardian once when working on a site and we ran out of bog roll. Some right-on person was visiting and left it on the side by mistake, very handy for me !
No one buys newspapers to make up their mind for them; they buy them to find out what is going on in the world, so they can make up their own mind. Few have the luxury of being able to access every source of information on every subject to become fully informed, so papers are relied upon, albeit with a degree of scepticism. The media, on the other hand, is a business, and its principle aim is therefore to make profit. Therefore when they deem appropriate they may exaggerate one thing or another, or opt to be controversial expressing their opinion, in order to get noticed and sell more papers, or whatever.
// Everybody knows just how much they cherrypick, manipulate and distort information. Everybody knows that these people care about their own poltitical agenda first and the truth second. Everybody knows they are unreliable. //
Because there are alot of people that don't care about any of that. They just want something to read, preferably something that reinforces the views they already hold.
Because there are alot of people that don't care about any of that. They just want something to read, preferably something that reinforces the views they already hold.
"and all papers do this, it is their agenda they are promoting, left, right, and much inbetween. "
I agree - hence why I don't read any newspapers and eagerly hope that my generation will witness their death.
However it seems pretty unavoidable that the Mail is particularly bad among a bad bunch - I can't think of an equivalent to its involvement (and partial responsibility for) the MMR scandal. Plus the constant stream of incidences where the Mail has to edit their website because they have printed some factually wrong or otherwise idiotic. These are pretty well-publicised - yet still people buy it.
O_G: I understand the principle of buying a newspaper for information, but I don't understand why someone would choose to buy a newspaper which is so utterly discredited as a source of truthful information.
I agree - hence why I don't read any newspapers and eagerly hope that my generation will witness their death.
However it seems pretty unavoidable that the Mail is particularly bad among a bad bunch - I can't think of an equivalent to its involvement (and partial responsibility for) the MMR scandal. Plus the constant stream of incidences where the Mail has to edit their website because they have printed some factually wrong or otherwise idiotic. These are pretty well-publicised - yet still people buy it.
O_G: I understand the principle of buying a newspaper for information, but I don't understand why someone would choose to buy a newspaper which is so utterly discredited as a source of truthful information.
"Point me in the direction of a newspaper that always tells the truth and does not have a political agenda and I will buy it."
I don't necessarily have a problem with political agendas, I just have a problem with dishonesty. And I have a big problem when agendas come as a higher priority than being honest. It's quite easy to have an openly-declared political agenda and report things honestly - the best example being The Economist. I used to subscribe for a couple of years, and I can remember at least two occasions where the paper actually sent letters to all its subscribers apologising for a factual mistake and even changing the conclusions of the original piece in light of the mistake.
I don't necessarily have a problem with political agendas, I just have a problem with dishonesty. And I have a big problem when agendas come as a higher priority than being honest. It's quite easy to have an openly-declared political agenda and report things honestly - the best example being The Economist. I used to subscribe for a couple of years, and I can remember at least two occasions where the paper actually sent letters to all its subscribers apologising for a factual mistake and even changing the conclusions of the original piece in light of the mistake.
The DM would never believe in letting the truth get in the way of a good story. The DM wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and bit them on their bright BLUE asses. I've never bought a newspaper in my life because they are all total strangers to the truth. DM is the worst though. However, people still buy it and believe what's inside. It would go belly up tomorrow if gullible people just stopped buying it. Oh, how I wish...
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.