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

[traceyracer]

Just going to leave this here

www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46976834

Microsoft Edge has been (since last Aug) warning its users who visit the Daily Mail's website to "proceed with caution: this website generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability"

I concur

Yes, it's a shame the left-wing press seem to be about as much use as a chocolate fireguard these days.

#nodebate

It’s not like TRAs hold themselves to any kind of objective quality standards in presenting their own wobbly stats etc.

The articles that are linked have often been about subjects that have already being discussed on the board.

They are also critiqued when they include errors etc

More seem to be from The Mail on Sunday which has a different editor and team.

Many articles by The Guardian which are about subjects discussed on the board are found to have considerable bias and inaccuracies.

Adults are able to assess articles and discuss the points raised.

The Microsoft software sounds to me like a political statement.

Fwiw, I find the accuracy of Mail on Sunday articles, and even Daily Mail articles, to be pretty good most of the time. Mail Online is less reliable, unless they're sourcing stuff from the print editions. It's true that Mail columnists can be inflammatory, and they are often sexist, racist and the rest. But a lot of the news reporting is first-class.

Visiting that site will also give you nits and turn your milk sour. Beware!

And the BBC is absolutely unbiased and always correct?

It would be really god if the left wing press had the integrity to report when it doesn't suit their agenda, then.

I ended up turning to Breitbart FFS after the Cologne attacks. I needed a shower afterwards but at least they were reporting it.

*good

I always check for a primary source but the Mail is the one that diverges the most our simply makes things up. I remember a documentary some years ago about their showbiz reporter who just made things up e.g. someone photographed blinking was 'blind drunk, probably on drugs, snarling at reporters'

There is a narrative being pushed that the British 'right wing press' is contributing to the rising levels of transphobia in the UK.

Feminists and people critical of trans-ideology are being described as 'white supremacists / Nazis etc'

see allegations about Mumsnet:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3444548-Vice-how-an-online-forum-for-moms-became-a-toxic-hotbed-of-transphobia

www.wired.co.uk/article/mumsnet-moderators-trans-rights-debate

www.huckmag.com/perspectives/opinion-perspectives/mumsnet-transphobia-online/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3236832-another-mumsnet-is-transphobic-article

theoutline.com/post/6536/british-feminists-media-transphobic?zd=2&zi=wkxfibpw

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3415244-hilarious-article

Spectator article by Robert Jackman:
' Mumsnet and the British media aren’t ‘transphobic’'
(extract)
Is the British media transphobic? Yes, according to a writer in the Outline, a US publication, who accuses the Times and the Guardian of rampant bigotry in the row about gender. Several prominent British feminists are also singled out for alleged ‘hate-peddling’. The logic here is muddled but is worth unpicking. The author appears to claim that the views of British feminists like Helen Lewis (who has urged caution over the Government’s proposal to reform the Gender Recognition Act) are somehow comparable to the Trump administration, which is – according to the New York Times – seeking to remove legal protections for transgender individuals. This is a complete misunderstanding of both debates. (continues)

concludes:
dly, the Outline lays the blame for this supposed media bigotry at an unlikely door: Mumsnet. The article claims that some of Mumsnet’s 14 million users have developed an “obsession” with transgender issues. It’s true that transgender issues are frequently discussed on Mumsnet – but why assume this is down to bigotry, rather than the fact that many of these concerns (the housing of male sex offenders in women’s prisons, for example) resonate deeply with the women of Middle England?

The writer isn’t wrong that Mumsnet holds deep influence – just not necessarily with the media. When I spoke to someone who knows the consultation well, they mentioned the “Mumsnet effect” – the fact that the Government had received cautious responses from women all over the UK, representing all ages and backgrounds. The responses calling for the more ideological system, however, tended to be concentrated in smaller clusters, usually from London and university cities – places which typically vote Labour.

Ultimately it will be this kind of political pragmatism which will probably persuade ministers against uprooting the GRA system. Blaming it on the Times and the Guardian might seem tempting – but it’s ultimately untrue."
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mumsnet-and-the-british-media-arent-transphobic/

😂 the BBC on the other hand is a bastion of truth and honesty! Please. BBC are misogynistic bastards.

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)

And the BBC is absolutely unbiased and always correct?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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)

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."