> In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor.
> This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.
Re:Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
by junto on Thursday February 09, 2017 @04:52AM
(#13605776)
One of the biggest issues with UK newspapers is ownership and political influence. There are very few owners and they all have distinct political goals, and are willing to influence elections by sidling up to politicians (and vice versa). See Rupert Murdoch's history with political party influence and his links to prime ministers.
Re:Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
by The_suffocated on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @11:58PM
(#13604784)
I think The Guardian and FT are not bad at all. I don't intend to start an argument, but I'm curious to know which newspapers (in other countries) in your opinion are good.
Re:Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source
by al452 on Wednesday February 08, 2017 @05:57PM
(#13603002)
Those of us in the UK have always known the Daily Mail is about as reliable as any other rubbish tabloid, i.e. not at all. It's always seemed strange that it has a much higher reputation in other countries. Hopefully that will change.
http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-libe...
> In the files of the Press Complaints Commission, you will find records of 687 complaints against the Mail which led either to a PCC adjudication or to a resolution negotiated, at least partially, after the PCC’s intervention. The number far exceeds that for any other British newspaper: the files show 394 complaints against the Sun, 221 against the Daily Telegraph, 115 against the Guardian. The complaints will serve as a charge sheet against the Mail and its editor.
> This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.
Also, Why the Daily Mail is Evil (about the "all grown up" creepy as fck stuff the DM does): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_Unit...
MailOnline is far less political and far more celebrity and gossip driven than the print edition.
(oops desas beat me to it)
https://www.buzzfeed.com/markschoofs/21-explosive-investigat...
The Tennis Racket was one of my favourite reads of the year.
(of course, it still has a clickbait headline)