The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

deathtothepixies -> The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:21:56 PM)
Recently I have noticed a surge in the number of people using the Daily Mail as a source. Are there not enough stupid media sources in America any more? The Daily Mail is a complete and utter bag of shite. A typical headline might read... "Diana hating illegal immigrant Muslim attacks lollipop lady and lowers house prices" I urge all of you to completely ignore any post which has anything to do with the Daily Mail, and anyone who uses it as a source should suffer the scorn they deserve

Phydeaux -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:44:02 PM)
Do you suppose it is any more credible or less credible than MSNBC?

Politesub53 -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:44:12 PM)
To be fair most of the smaller rags have gone the same way, right or left but few proper stories. The Sun, Mirror and Mail are no longer what they once were. I sometimes read one or another of them but mostly stick to the Independant, or more likely the "I" its slimmed down version.

DomKen -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:44:22 PM)
Our British posters, and those who have visited England, have repeatedly explained the Mail is unfit for wrapping fish but the message never seems to get through.

Politesub53 -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:46:12 PM)
It certainly has become more sensationalist over the years Ken. I think its an effort to keep up sales in the era of internet news.

DomKen -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 To be fair most of the smaller rags have gone the same way, right or left but few proper stories. The Sun, Mirror and Mail are no longer what they once were. I sometimes read one or another of them but mostly stick to the Independant, or more likely the "I" its slimmed down version. Admit it, you never get past page 3... :D

deathtothepixies -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Do you suppose it is any more credible or less credible than MSNBC? I have no idea but if you're even thinking of comparing them then MSNBC must be shit too

deathtothepixies -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:50:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 To be fair most of the smaller rags have gone the same way, right or left but few proper stories. The Sun, Mirror and Mail are no longer what they once were. I sometimes read one or another of them but mostly stick to the Independant, or more likely the "I" its slimmed down version. Admit it, you never get past page 3... :D credit where credit is due, Sun readers voted a few years ago to only have natural, not fake tits on page 3, which is nice, I guess

stef -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 4:53:55 PM)
The Daily Fail is about on par with the Weekly World News or anything Alex Jones posts on his various websites.

Lucylastic -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 5:06:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Our British posters, and those who have visited England, have repeatedly explained the Mail is unfit for wrapping fish but the message never seems to get through. Thing is Ken, nothing ever gets thru..........messages, hints, outright contempt even. They keep doing it. Phydeaux, where are these incidences of posters using msnbc as a source?....say since november.???

Phydeaux -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 5:12:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Our British posters, and those who have visited England, have repeatedly explained the Mail is unfit for wrapping fish but the message never seems to get through. Thing is Ken, nothing ever gets thru..........messages, hints, outright contempt even. They keep doing it. Phydeaux, where are these incidences of posters using msnbc as a source?....say since november.??? Does it matter? I'm not going to do the research and neither are you? If you wish me to more broadly explain the point I will be happy to do so. The New Times - lefty magazine. 99% drivel. Yet. Every so often it gets an article that is well researched, and backed up with multiple sources. Attacking the messanger instead of discrediting the article is what passes for brilliance here too often. You like huffington, new york times. I like the wall street journal and IBD. Shouldn't matter. The article is the thing. And for the record, I went to school in England. I'm well aware of the proclivities of the varies rags.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 5:19:50 PM)
FR... Attacking the messenger dose not change what happened.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 5:28:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... Attacking the messenger dose not change what happened. Yeah, but no brain work required if you can just say "Oh, an article from the Daily Mail ... we won't have to actually do any thinking." Kinda like the Enquirer here in the US ... that John Edwards story was just (what was that phrase?) ... "shyte". Until it wasn't. Firm

Hillwilliam -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 5:41:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy FR... Attacking the messenger dose not change what happened. The problem with some tabloids (Brit and American) is that it didn't actually happen. Another problem is that our Brit friends have no idea which American media sources at least attempt to be accurate just like we Yanks are just as unaware of the Brit media accuracy.

Kirata -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 6:03:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I urge all of you to completely ignore any post which has anything to do with the Daily Mail, and anyone who uses it as a source should suffer the scorn they deserve The Daily Mail does seems to have a tabloid format, not that I spend much time exploring it, but I've usually found their actual news stories reported in other sources. I tend to post the alternative link in order to avoid the scorn of people with a penchant for stereotyping, but I have never associated that characteristic with a genuine interest in truth. K.

PeonForHer -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 6:39:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 To be fair most of the smaller rags have gone the same way, right or left but few proper stories. The Sun, Mirror and Mail are no longer what they once were. I sometimes read one or another of them but mostly stick to the Independant, or more likely the "I" its slimmed down version. Chortle. You read The Mail, don't you PS? You've valiantly defended it before, I recall. Come on, admit it. Weird perversions are accepted on this site. OK, this is an extreme one, but I'm sure that people will rise to the challenge. They know that you're otherwise balanced. [;)]

PeonForHer -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 6:43:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies credit where credit is due, Sun readers voted a few years ago to only have natural, not fake tits on page 3, which is nice, I guess Fucking feminazi influence again. I hope Naughtynick has duly clocked this latest example of the hateful march of the feminist jackboot. [:'(]

RottenJohnny -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 8:05:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Our British posters, and those who have visited England, have repeatedly explained the Mail is unfit for wrapping fish but the message never seems to get through. Just out of curiosity, Ken, what sources do you consider unbiased?

JeffBC -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 8:42:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies I have no idea but if you're even thinking of comparing them then MSNBC must be shit too I have no familiarity with the daily mail so i cannot really compare. But here in the states we have tabloid which publish stuff like, "Britney is sleeping with Michael Jackson's illegitimate son." Then we have Fox and MSNBC -- both of which are pretty much pure propaganda. Fox is the republican mouthpiece. MSNBC is the democratic one.

DomKen -> RE: The Daily Mail (9/24/2013 8:44:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Our British posters, and those who have visited England, have repeatedly explained the Mail is unfit for wrapping fish but the message never seems to get through. Just out of curiosity, Ken, what sources do you consider unbiased? None. For media sources I read/watch on a regular basis: Chicago Tribune BBC Al-Jazeera America (this is really surprisingly good) New York Times CNN I just accept each source and writer has a bias and try to distill the reality from the reporting. The sources I avoid are ones like the Daily Mail, FNC and the Washington Times that have a documented history of simply making stuff up.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875