Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable' Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable' - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11

    Respect my authoritah!

    NotAllThere is always on top

    NotAllThere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Far away from HMRC
    Posts
    21,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d000hg View Post
    ... the DM just makes stuff up or says "some people claim..."
    Well it's true, because the DM journalist who wrote is a person, and he or she is claiming it.
    Hmm. I'm beginning to suspect that you need to find all the packing the computer came in...

  2. #12

    Old Greg is my bitch's bitch

    northernladyuk is a fount of knowledge

    northernladyuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Working the streets of your imagination
    Posts
    9,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d000hg View Post
    It's their comments section for people who read the Guardian... expecting an open forum is naive!
    I regularly troll the Guardian BTL, and they are ready to wield the post delet button, but not the banhammer. I wonder what the OP did?
    Where there's muck there's brass.

  3. #13

    Godlike

    Mordac is a fount of knowledge

    Mordac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Civilisation-ish
    Posts
    8,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eirikur View Post
    The difference is that The Guardian and other serious news papers do fact checking before publishing anything, they will give their own spin to the stories left or right wing, but the event they are reporting on was real, as long as you realise that, you can make up your own mind.
    The DM comes up with totally made up stories and simpleton derelict coastal town UKIP voters take that as the full truth..
    There used to be a website called "FactCheckingPolly" or something similar, specifically for the purpose of tearing Ms Toynbee's column apart.
    To be fair to the Graun, they do publish a daily list of "Corrections & Clarifications", where they do list the bits they got wrong. Today's for example, apologises for saying the Royal Marines are part of the Army (it's the Navy), and that they got some NHS stats wrong (they were overly pessimistic, natch).
    His heart is in the right place - shame we can't say the same about his brain...

  4. #14

    Super poster

    woohoo is a fount of knowledge

    woohoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    In the country
    Posts
    4,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by northernladyuk View Post
    I regularly troll the Guardian BTL, and they are ready to wield the post delet button, but not the banhammer. I wonder what the OP did?
    Disagreed with an article and got a load of likes, it was deleted then I was banned, well still able to log in but not make comments. I emailed them asking why I was banned and they said they would investigate but nothing back. I quoted back to them their terms and conditions for banning and asked which one I broke but nothing.

    Signed up again while later, made comments for a while but then disagreed and was banned.

    I tend to read the ny times now, best of the lot.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •