The Daily Mail can't get their facts right.....

[LovesBloominChristmas]

I Use the daily mail iPhone app. I use it because it is free. Mow I know you get what you pay for but shouldn't a newspaper be able to write things so that things like sentences, spellings and reports are correct

I'm not tge best speller, no doubt there are typos in this post but I'm not a newspaper. Why can't they get it right? It just all goes wrong far too often.

What has set me off today? Whilst feeding ds I am having a read. I click into the article re Kevin from corrie being cleared of allegations of child abuse. Now I move ds and accidentally head into the photos, there under a photo of kevin and his ex wife is a title that says they spilt following the allegations, in the report it makes it very clear that they'd split before that

Why can't they get it right? Do the reporters upload without anyone reading their work?

And you are surprised at this breaking news?

And in Other News, the Pope is a Catholic!!

\link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2080497/Manchester-City-striker-Mario-Balotelli-turns-100k-white-Maserati-black.html\excellent example yesterday}

"surely it would have been easier for the £24million striker to just buy a new car, since he reportedly earns £180,000-a-week"

IT IS A NEW CAR, YOU STUPID BINT!

They make loads of errors, I often add comments pointing these out but funnily enough they never past their mods.

I am always venting my spleen at their atrocious errors; they don't even acknowledge me! By far the most frequent are their headlines with the wrong 'practice' in them, they make that mistake all the time.

Like the headline \link{http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080536/The-Iron-Lady-Margaret-Thatcher-ignored-children-Christmas.html"sad demise of an Iron Lady"} - unfortunately they only meant that she spent C Day away from her delightful offspring

I know it's sub-editors that do headlines but you'd think the journo would check & correct!

If the Daily Fail reported the facts instaed of pushing their agenda then it would lose its readership.

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/apr/19/mail-online-website-popular

They are doing something right to be the second biggest online newspaper in the world.

they are certainly courting American readers - so many of the comments are from there! (& generally display a sad lack of understanding about how the rest of the world works )

It was interesting to read the bit about subs to the NYT - I subscribe to their daily news emails, & the other day I got an extra one telling me I had to pay a certain amount, followed the next day by one saying the first one was sent in error, so maybe it will continue to be free for their overseas subscribers

that's from last April - Huffington news is now provided to all aol members, so I bet the positions have changed back!

\link{http://newsonomics.com/the-newsonomics-of-arpu-counting-revenue-per-visitor/\this is interesting} (if very confusing to a non-economist!)

"If close to right, the value of a unique visitor is 3.5x greater for the Times than for HuffPo, in advertising. It?s 4x greater for the Guardian than Mail Online."

"The Guardian and The New York Times are driving more pageviews per unique visitor than the Huffington Post and Mail Online ? both of which may have mastered search engine optimization and search engine marketing to tilt the unique numbers in their favor. The more pageviews, the more chance for monetization, and, thus, more revenue. Fly-bys are a huge part of everyone?s traffic (probably 60-70 percent of New York Times and Guardian traffic); they may be an even huger part of HuffPo?s and Mail Online?s"

I have noticed that whatever I search for on google, unless it's an actual product, the DM is usually there on the first page

The Mail has people based in the US working on web content so must have an interest in US readers. No idea what money they make out of it.

xyfactor yes it free!