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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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'

"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.

Really? My MSN feed regularly contains DM items.

"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.

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

Also, having spent a whole evening reading the Wiki ‘Talk’ page on ‘Transwoman’ I am very much aware of how dominant voices set narratives for others to follow. Wouldn’t give their stance on the Daily Mail any credence at all, frankly. Pot, kettle, black.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3415212-WTF-Wikipedia

It's almost like someone believes women are a bit stupid, unable to approach information with an analytical eye and need to be told not to read certain things.

Doesn't sound very feminist to me.

Maybe you left the link in the wrong place?

I often wonder why people post opening posts like that.

It does fuck all for their argument, apart from dismantle it.

What's the point?

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.

This

Datun, I rather suspect it's because they're used to interacting on Twitter, where blocking is almost reflex for some people. They don't know how to do more than post links and soundbites that they think are mic drop moments and run.

It works for them on Twitter because they just block any dissenting or critical answers. It don't fly here.

Freakin drive-by right-thinkers...

Agree that the Guardian failed terribly when they declined to cover, in even the most neutral way possible, reports coming from Cologne; it was difficult not to feel that their political position compromised their journalistic integrity.

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

This.

Bit of a thread diversion but:

I'm left wing (but politically homeless right now since Labour did its 'thing' - well, its many 'things'!). My dad is too.

When I was a teenager he did the best thing ever in terms of learning about media perspectives. It's stayed with me for years.

He came home once with all the papers on the same day.

And we read the same stories in different papers, and talked about the way they were represented differently.

If you ever saw the paper in his shopping basket, many people would make instant decisions on his political leanings,. And they'd be very wrong.

He taught me to read widely, challenge your own beliefs, step outside your echo chamber (not that it was called that, back then, I think!) listen and read other perspectives.

I'm not an academic, so I'm probably using the wrong words here.

But this sort of help in developing critical thinking, even if it's just your dad showing you how different papers report the same story, is such an essential skill for helping us not to retreat into tribalism, blinkered thinking, and not being able to understand the perspectives of those we may disagree with.

And to avoid falling into the trap of assuming that, because the source is one that you're most politically-aligned, it's always 'right' and others are 'wrong'.

Thanks Dad

I agree about the Guardian and Cologne. That really opened my eyes. They just didn't want to report on it at all. Threw assaulted women under the bus for ideological reasons. Could not report the wrongdoings of darker-skinned men for fear we would all turn into Nazis upon reading about it.

The Mail covers stories about domestic violence and violence against and abuse of children which other papers don't.

It may even be the case that this true of the other red tops. The Mail might well laugh and point at silly and/or drunk women spilling out of too tight dresses but it has little tolerance for men hitting women.

If you use search engine in the daily mail. You get reuters and lots of other links. I have thought the DM was more of a gossipy magazine for years now. A bit of fun but for NEWS you have to search further afield.