Oh no... A Daily Mail story...

I would suspect the daily mail are a more reliable source of truth than the sun ;)

To be honest, most of the tabloids have their own agenda and are pretty lax with the truth.
 
Talking of Wikipedia I once tried to "correct" a Wikipedia page. It didn't go well :p.

Edit: To be fair they had got their facts wrong.
 
Not surprising with DM claim that it changes by language, as it is edited by people from those places and obviously they tend to get their own version of history in school and such.

With that, i would say its pretty reliable by comparison to the DM and probably useful knowing that if yo look up what happened in a conflict between two countries, you get the version as known by people which are native in the language you read in.

I doubt you will find many outright incorrect claims when looking at maths/science formulae and probably much less than the average textbook given how much it is proofread by its audience.
 
Flibster;30487182 said:
Well, not exactly... but a story about the Daily Mail.

Wikipedia has listed the use of the Daily Mail as a source as unreliable and are trying generally prohibiting it's use due to lack of fact checking and generally making stuff up. :D

So, not a full ban, but hey... it's a start.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
Click to expand...

Leftwing Guardian promoting negative info about rightwing Dailymail. Both as bad as each other.
 
Cromulent;30487254 said:
I actually quite enjoy watching RT even though it is crazy biased.
Click to expand...

Haha yea, I think RT is one of the worst and it's not even subtle. Look on their site, literally everything is criticising Europe and the US and not a single bad word about anything Russia do (probably on fear of being killed with radioactive tea) :D
 
I enjoy reading the showbiz/entertainment section on the Daily Mail website because they describe every single picture.

"[x] showcased her enviably toned midriff, her chestnut locks flowing loosely, highlighting her almost make-up free complexion."

Why are we being told the very thing we can see in picture form? What is the purpose? I find it fascinating and amusing.

The rest of the paper/website is a dumpster fire of rightwing nonsense though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom