Except the Guardian article will be based on the facts, evidence and truth, while the dailymail will be based on lies, falsehoods, exaggeration.
Jacob Rees-Mogg Redux
- Thread starter Skunkworks
- Start date
Except the Guardian article will be based on the facts, evidence and truth, while the dailymail will be based on lies, falsehoods, exaggeration.
Yes, we all know the mail is more right wing and the guardian is more left wing. That doesn’t mean anything in terms of how reliable either of them is as a news source.
Well not really.
And as you added opinion polls data.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.press...y-star-according-bbc-commissioned-survey/amp/
The public’s opinion on reliability and impartiality. Note the Guardian is near the top, only beaten by the FT and Independent, while the Mail is considered one of the least impartial and trustworthy sources.
And that’s where your problem is. You reject an objective poll because the results don’t line up with your prejudices.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Despite all evidence I still dont believe it. aka LALALALALA I'm not listening. 
How many awards has the Daily Mail won for journalism? When was the last time the Daily Mail actually did some investigative journalism and broke a major international story?
Yes, The Guardian has an obvious left leaning bias in it's reporting, but at least it also presents the facts and sources. If you can't see the difference then I genuinely feel bad for you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,109
- Location
- Shepley
It genuinely scares me that people see presenting facts, sources and data over irrational prejudice as some sort of intellectual elitism.
We’ve had enough of experts dontchaknow — down with their facts and their knowledge and their evidence!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,081
They've been watching too many movies where the rock went on gut instinct...
It's worn as a badge of honour and it's exactly why Trumps blatant lies are ignored. People simply don't care, yet they're quick to argue and provide 'alternative facts'.
The mind boggles.
Depends on the street I guess!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,765
- Location
- Auckland
A man of reasonable intellect would consider or put aside the political leanings of the sources he reads; they all have them and none of them pretend otherwise. It's very easy these days to fact check and look at sources, check references, and be informed.
The less educated man would stop reading before he got there.
someone less sanctimonious would understand that things posted on internet forums are often in jest.
Everything is serious in the Rees-mogg thread he's a serious politician don't you know not a figure of fun to be mocked as the condescending spoilt brat that he is.
As much as I hate to defend the Daily and Sunday Mail, they have won a fair few awards. Just have a look at the Press Awards for example, they have won Newspaper of the Year more times than any other paper.
Yes they have a strong editorial bias, yes a lot of their stories are trash and ill informed, but they do have some good journalists working for them and they do some serious journalism. Is it possible you are letting your own bias against the paper get in the way?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Wonder what the criteria is to win that.
Unsure it really validates the daily mail given how much rubbish they publish.
I am not saying that it does validate the Mail, but it does win awards, it does do some investigative journalism. Yes, the majority of it is right wing trash, but if we are talking about not being able to see through your own bias then you also need to acknowledge all of the stuff the Mail does and not just the objectionable stuff. Otherwise you are just projecting your own bias and ignoring facts.