User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here on the project:

Here are some more:

More for the list[edit]

But this one takes the (cancer-causing) biscuit:

Richard Littlejohn: Spare us the 'People's Prostitute' routine...

Let's get the caveat out of the way from the off. The five women murdered in Ipswich were tragic, lost souls who met a grisly end. I sincerely hope whoever killed them is caught, charged and convicted. No one with a shred of humanity would wish upon them their ghastly lives and horrible deaths. But Mother Teresa, they weren't. We do not share in the responsibility for either their grubby little existences or their murders. Society isn't to blame.

It might not be fashionable, or even acceptable in some quarters, to say so, but in their chosen field of "work', death by strangulation is an occupational hazard. That doesn't make it justifiable homicide, but in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss.

They weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur. The only kind of missionary position they undertook was in the back seat of a car.

"Now, seriously people, the Daily Mail is this good. And as long as its political views are the same as mine, I'll keep saying this! Now, I'm off to have a pop at the 'crats in Brussels."

If you think that's bad, check out Peter Hitchens. I used to work in an office where somebody left a copy of the Daily Express in the kitchen the week Smack My Bitch Up was in the top ten. "Contempt" is not the word. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I don't see how it could be much worse than dear old Littlejohn's screed.
It's rather like the classic statement "I'm not racist.. but..." only here it's (perhaps) more like: "I'm not a cold-hearted, self-righteous, condescending, possibly psychopathic, misogynistic arsehole who profits from propaganda, incitement of hatred and peddling of falsehoods, reveling in the misfortune, misery and murder of the vulnerable.. but..." -- Hillbillyholiday talk
Is it true? Well not quite. -- Hillbillyholiday talk

Harvest Mailwatch and Rationalwiki and Entire Tabloid Watch

Uncategorised Resources[edit]

"The MailOnline occasionally publishes stories containing illegal images of underage children.[1] While these images are usually removed after some time, allegations have been made of a close relationship between the MailOnline and the police forces by [who?]." [2]

Fact checking failures or misleading articles[edit]

  • In April 2012, MailOnline published an article about a dentist who pulled out her ex-boyfriend's teeth, which was exposed as a hoax by MSNBC.com.[3][4][5]

In October 2011, MailOnline and several other newspapers mistakenly published articles on Amanda Knox's trial, reporting that the appeal led to upholding the original guilty verdict, which was incorrect; the verdict was overturned.[6][7] The mistakenly published article included fabricated quotes and falsely claimed she was put on suicide watch.[8][9]

In June 2010, The Guardian reported that MailOnline had published an inaccurate story about an iPhone 4 recall, based on a Twitter message by a Steve Jobs impersonator.[10]

In October 2013, The Raw Story reported the MailOnline had pulled a story[1] about a transgender student who had been harassing female students in a school bathroom. The story has been taken up by Fox. Girls who complained about the harassment were threatened with disciplinary measures. It turned out that no students had been harassed, and only one parent was upset about the transgender student.[11]

Ignoring copyright[edit]

In March 2012, Poynter published an article describing multiple examples of MailOnline using material from other news websites without credit.[12]

Wrongful/unfounded accusations[edit]

Misrepresentation of evidence/facts[edit]

Leveson Inquiry[edit]

Swansong[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "New Statesman".
  2. ^ "Tabloid Watch".
  3. ^ Eric Tennant (8 May 2012). "Story of vengeful jilted dentist was too good to be true". MSNBC.com. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  4. ^ Jonathan Lemire (28 April 2012). "Sweet revenge: Dentist pulls ALL of ex-boyfriend's teeth out after getting dumped". New York Daily News. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  5. ^ "Vengeful Polish dentist story reported to be a hoax". Fox News. 30 April 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  6. ^ "Daily Mail inquiry into 'Knox guilty' blunder". PressGazette. 4 October 2011. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  7. ^ Joel Gunter (4 October 2011). "Daily Mail criticised over Amanda Knox guilty story". journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  8. ^ Stuart Kemp (3 October 2011). "Amanda Knox Verdict: Daily Mail's Website Posts Wrong Decision". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 5 January 2013. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  9. ^ Greenslade, Roy (4 October 2011). "The Guardian on the false Mail Online Amanda Knox verdict". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  10. ^ Charles Arthur (28 June 2010). "Daily Mail fooled by fake Steve Jobs tweet on iPhone 4 recall". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 January 2013.
  11. ^ Gettys, Travis. "Fox News promotes false story about transgender student harassing girls in bathroom". The Raw Story. Retrieved 16 October 2013.
  12. ^ "Editor of Daily Mail's website defends attribution practices in face of growing criticism". poynter.org. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John/Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source%3F&oldid=1082485580"