I see Daily Mail links posted here a lot for a source

A range of articles from a range of publications are posted here.

Left-leaning press are just as prone to inaccuracies - there is a reason that The Guardian is affectionately known as The Grauniad!

The independent settled out of court after one of their articles made grossly false accusations about statistics compiled by FairPlay for Women.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3399165-Victory-for-Fair-Play-For-Women-Independent-re-Owl-Fisher-article-settled-out-of-court

"Proceed with caution" is advice which should be applied to any source of information.

Absolutely. In the olden days we were taught to read everything and think about bias, history, perspective and to think critically. We read primary texts by 'bad' people in order to see what they thought about themselves. We were taught to work out why people thought as they did.

I was sent away with an essay by my Politics lecturer who told me that if I couldn't understand why neo-liberals colonialists did what they did, I had no place talking about colonialism. I was told to read Jackie Collins by my English teacher. Hitler and the IRA by history teachers. We were taught to debate the side of pro-lifers, pro-death penalty, pro-war people. And we were excellent at it.

Now you can't read a newspaper in case your brain assimilates wrong think. Luckily, I can because I trained my brain to do it. I am really worried young people are not being taught this skill any more.

Really? My MSN feed regularly contains DM items.

"Proceed with caution" is advice which should be applied to any source of information.

I post links from The Times/Sunday Times, my perception is that they have good journalistic standards, a good track record of investigative reporting (especially the ST) and less marked 'spin' in either direction than many other sources of news.

or to be less snarky and more constructive, what nauticant said

I'm bloody sick of people trying to tell us what to think, but never sticking around to engage

how do they think the lone GC voices on here 3-4 years ago changed minds?

they didn't just fucking 'leave this here'

yes ma'am @traceyracer ma'am, I shall henceforth never sully my eyes with the daily mail ever again

thank the lord you stopped by to tell me what to think, otherwise I'd be allowing all sorts of unapproved things into my mind and who knows where that might end?

The DM has a new editor;

''A source with knowledge of the discussions told the Guardian that Greig’s appointment was part of a process of “detoxifying the Daily Mail” after Dacre’s editorship.''
www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jun/07/new-daily-mail-editor-to-be-geordie-greig

Anyone who only uses one or two sources for their current affairs these days is likely to be living in a bubble.

My DH slags off the DM too - but he never ever reads it and still holds some misguided belief that the BBC is unbiased. Ha, as if.

I'm afraid, having spent the last year on MN FWR, my eyes have been well and truly opened with regards to media outlets, and I'd trust the DM over the Guardian any day.

My view of the Daily Mail has shifted to "what I was supposed to think by right thinkers" to grudging respect in some important areas and an understanding that it makes a very necessary contribution to the media as a whole.

Thanks for driving by, @traceyracer.

I saw this story yesterday, and I tried the NewsGuard plugin (it isn't really a Microsoft thing) on Chrome.

The NewsGuard hatchet job on them is here:

api.newsguardtech.com/DE1EA886EB1DC9E7A05280FE39759D14700F896D13DF4D23AFE05C3E6E0C087D5EAD165F73A89E4237501ABF69D3ACC32F21BB6976D8268A?cid=5e12b356-a3e5-4f0b-8edd-432eb36e6f85

It is an embarrassingly partisan effort and includes such gems as:

"Notorious for its support of German and Italian fascists, including Adolf Hitler"

"Photographs make up much of the site’s content. A sidebar on the right side of many pages, titled “Femail Today” and widely referred to in the United Kingdom as the “sidebar of shame,” features attention-grabbing celebrity gossip headlines and photographs."

It also cites

"In February 2017, Wikipedia volunteer editors concluded that the Daily Mail and its website are “generally unreliable” and should not be used as a source on its platform, due to “poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication.”

Meanwhile, the Independent which prints lots of provably fake stories

api.newsguardtech.com/838E078A426E8D24BAF967B1FAAC537943653053C95D9A35452A28C430953EF14D5FEC57BEB7CE3B3924CE96C68F4D42FA76FF1E4AE16A45?cid=5e12b356-a3e5-4f0b-8edd-432eb36e6f85

gets a clean bill of health, with no mention of fake, made-up lies like this: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html or the constant clickbait they employ.

And of course Anna-Sophie's review of Teen Vogue praises it to the skies:

api.newsguardtech.com/54BD6875222C0850BD766C9ED6D833C470539B34B5509CC4ABACD33FC6367CAF67E54F7A0EFFD4562E338E21785BE396B1F91E70E087E985?cid=5e12b356-a3e5-4f0b-8edd-432eb36e6f85

"TeenVogue.com declares its mission is to be “the young person’s guide to saving the world.” It says on the Condé Nast site that it aims to empower young people to contribute to their communities, as well as “telling stories that normally go untold.

In mid-2016, the site began to publish frequently news and opinion articles on U.S. politics and social issues. Particularly notable was an op-ed titled “Donald Trump is Gaslighting America,” published in the week after Trump was elected president in November 2016. Articles on the Standing Rock protests by Native Americans, sexual harassment at music festivals, and Vice President Mike Pence’s record on LGBTQ rights appear alongside makeup how-tos and fashion spreads."

So the Daily Mail has the sidebar of shame, what the fuck would you call this? www.teenvogue.com/story/anal-sex-what-you-need-to-know

The avenue of agony?

These self-appointed arbiters of truth and accuracy can fuck off and then go fuck off some more.

Every single person on this website knows what the Daily Mail is and does not need the pronouncement of Microsoft to inform them about it?

What are we supposed to conclude from this shite? 'Some random start-up said the Daily Mail is inaccurate, well this changes EVERYTHING. She-penis is real! Repent! Burn the witches!

Idiocy.

I like the Daily Mail. Some of the articles on there are poorly written, based off less than credible sources or just plain boring but its not all like that.

I prefer to maintain a healthy skepticism for all sites I visit, not just the "bad" ones.

So, the DM and RT receive a 1/5 credibility ranking and a red warning, and Fox News get 5/5 credibility rating and a green pass.

www.niemanlab.org/2018/08/newsguard-considers-fox-news-a-healthy-part-of-your-news-diet/

I personally do not trust anyone who tries to stop me using alternative news sources, or worse still tries to tell me what is "good" and what is "bad" news.
We all know what is going on with regard to Twitter, with certain people banned for telling the truth and others left completely free to abuse and threaten.

The DM has its bias'. I and others are intelligent enough to see beyond those.

But at least it has the courage to publish stories that other papers will not touch. And is subject to the same libel and other laws as everyone else. Better that than being told what to think. Or following opinions set by uberrich geeky IT guys in the US.

A free press is vitally important.

Wikipedia stopped using the DM as an accepted source some time ago. (I fully expect comments about Wikipedia from people that don't understand how to use it or how it works)

www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-five-wikipedia-biases-pro-western-male-dominated

"Research shows just 16% of Wikipedia editors are female and only 17% of entries dedicated to notable people are for women."

Just going to leave this here

Out of interest which ideological pure media source tipped the balance to get the weasel Jack Shepherd to give himself up the authorities in Georgia?

Some of us are actually left wing you know, rather than this bourgeois penis-pleasing currently promoted by the liberal left institutions.

Wikipedia stopped using the DM as an accepted source some time ago. (I fully expect comments about Wikipedia from people that don't understand how to use it or how it works)

PMSL. This is going to be the thread that keeps on giving, isn't it.

Anyone who has been here longer than 2 minutes knows that women used to apologise for using Mail links, but at some point just stopped by a general unspoken consensus that;
a) people demand/expect receipts and
b) the Mail are often the only ones reporting.

Yes, we must put all truth in the hands of our liberal left betters, who know how to properly improve the lessers.

Loll OP, don’t let the DM tell you what to think, let me tell you what to think instead.

When other UK media outlets get brave enough to report we can use multiple sources.

Newsguard are a private company who carry out the ratings used by Microsoft Edge, they don't publish details of how they rate sites but I've seen a rating that they consider Fox News to be accurate

Just going to leave this here

Wikipedia stopped using the DM as an accepted source some time ago. (I fully expect comments about Wikipedia from people that don't understand how to use it or how it works)

I know how it works.

I also know that it’s often wildly inaccurate precisely because of the way it works.

Whenever I think of the BBC I think of the point in one of the Olympics where they were talking about medals. So far all the medals had been won by women and the picture they chose was a collage of pictures of male competitors.

They HATE women.

Just going to leave this here

Yep, make an ad hom, then move on so you don’t have to read the responses. Typical drive-by.

And the BBC is absolutely unbiased and always correct?

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3296433-BBC-Bias-Collecting-Examples-here