They don't like it when it comes back to bite them.
There is a lot to dislike about the Daily Mail I'm sure (I don't read it). But you aren't catching them in a moment of hypocrisy here. Everyone hates losing, doesn't mean they are wrong about what the rules of the game should be.
Capitalism is about increasing efficiency / resources through brutal competition.
Just don’t let them make laws giving one group special treatment. Like banning the competition.
More generally, having a market does not mean having a government that supplies no public goods -- that is, having a government, since supplying public goods is all a government does.
The existence of some free markets does not imply that every market is free. Excepting failed states, nowhere is every market free -- the markets for grenades, ivory, medical licenses, political appointments, assassinations, etc. are all things most of us want either tightly controlled or entirely suppressed.
And even in an extremely competitive market, like the ones for lettuce or generic drugs, there are still important roles for government to play. Of course regulation can be and often is grossly wasteful, even corrupt. But it's also critical to our safety.
Written from the perspective that the most straightforward explanation is true:
Bad analogy. Nobody entered anyone else's business.
The defendant prefers that its users get good quality information, and the plaintiff's reputation for low quality information runs afoul of that practice.
Also, why would a thief report his own crime?
> Also, why would a thief report his own crime?
The thief isn't reporting their own crime, they are reporting that they have been robbed by someone else.
FTFY
Eventually I landed on the Daily Mail's site and what do I see? A headline: "Woke Word-Salad". At that point I had to concede: okay, maybe this is where I belong.
There was a Daily Mail article about a thief who was unable to report a burglary? Or what exactly did you mean by that?
The Daily Mail, however, has spent the last few years describing the UK judiciary as "Enemies of the People", so they can continue to cry me a river.
To me that is the basic reason for having humans in the process.
Also taking into account the surroundings of a case, including who’s involved and their history is not preconception (or then everything becomes preconception).
It’s not the same if you’re a CEO filing a suit against a grandma who shouted insanities at you when you fired their son, and if you’re a worker subject to verbal abuse from your boss.
See: russiagate; russian bounties for american soldiers; the lack of representation of blacks and minorities in initial Covid coverage, leading many to assume it did not affect them; etc.
Edit to clarify: you're making a statement, you should be able to provide direct proof.
Most sources claim the Guardian is mostly factually correct:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/ ( which is American-centric, so ignore the bullshit liberal and conservative arguments) says they're mostly factual with the `Failed Fact Checks` section including opinion pieces and reporting as per X (e.g. https://fullfact.org/education/barnardos-foster-care-coronav...) , and the fact check saying X's report is wrong, not that the Guardian are misrepresenting facts.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-guardian-bias-and-reliabil... says they're very reliable.
When it comes to your links, consider that media ranking the media is perhaps not the least-biased judgment. Outlets branding themselves as fact-checkers are often particularly egregious. Snopes, for example, can't even dispassionately and accurately rate stories that do not fit a woke worldview.
I once read a NYT "fact check" that was checking a trump quote. One of the quotes was "we've been fighting in the middle east for 17 years." They rated this statement False, flat-out. Why? The correction stated, "We've been fighting in afghanistan for 17 years, but afghanistan is not the middle east. We've been fighting in the middle east for 16 years."
It completely ignored the point of the statement to issue a False rating on a technicality. Any reasonable interpretation would not have done so.
This is an example of the accuracy of modern-day "fact-checking." It's basically made up.
From the front page of the NYT website right now: “Proposed G.O.P. Bills Protect Drivers Who Hit Protesters With Cars”
I rest my case.
A Black Virginia Girl Says White Classmates Cut Her Dreadlocks at a Playground - https://web.archive.org/web/20190927202007/https://www.nytim...
The Daily Mail will actively gin up uninteresting or patently false stories with the hottest headlines they can possibly get away with. They'll skip coverage of important news if they can find a story about a prominent person misspeaking about something inconsequential. Look at the lawsuit. They were upset that publishing multiple stories a day about Piers Morgan weren't all getting top search ranking. The world doesn't need multiple stories per day about Piers Morgan any more than it needs multiple stories about celebrity bikini bodies like what's on their front page right now. DM is fluff, it's pandering, it has no redeeming value.
The alternative take is that story pretty much is just juvenile hijinks, and the NYT is pretty much ginning up a story. A lot of the kids I knew in school were horrible to each other and nobody wrote an article about them.
Most print journalism has gone to the gutter these days, the NYT isn't a respectable institution. There is a bunch of stuff on the internet that is more reliable.
> The NY Times headline includes relevant details to inform the reader.
Lets see which details were no longer relevant once the story turned out to be false, and the Times (to their credit, unlike the Mail) changed the headline to reflect that:
Update: Virginia Girl Recants Story of Assault, and Family Apologizes - https://web.archive.org/web/20191001003852/https://www.nytim...
Many truths are infuriating. Reporting them does not in itself imply a lack of ethics.
Is that a legal argument?
I have no sympathy whatsoever, but as for the legal case I have no idea how this plays out.
The DM regularly loses libel cases for publishing fake smears about various victims. But apparently it considers these losses a cost of doing business.
It has been called out for its racism on numerous occasions.
It's notorious for wildly exaggerated tabloid abuse of legitimate refugees and immigrants.
It called judges who forced proper constitutional proceedings during Brexit "enemies of the people" - sparking a record number of complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
Its comments section is a cesspit of race hate and petty ignorance.
It literally supported Hitler before war was declared.
There isn't a rational case to be made for not disapproving of it morally.
That, and I say this with sadness, doesn’t follow from your other points.
It just means they have different morals from you and I.
In context - and especially in light of yesterday's verdict - it's really rather unconvincing.
So did the Daily Mirror. And the Guardian was a big supporter of eugenics. All irrelevant to the current papers.
Interestingly, the writer of the article in The Mirror that supported Hitler was one Lord Harmsworth - great grandfather of the current owner of the Mail.
Harmsworth also used to own the Mirror before it was sold and changed its political orientation.
The Daily Lie, The Daily Hate-Mail, The Daily Heil
Of course these could all have been generated by the left wing liberal elites who have an issue with straight forward honest reporting. Best you have a bit of a google/search engine of choice to determine which is more likely to be true. You could of course try visiting their website and seeing for yourself.
Your argument can be summed up by just saying you only want information that supports your preconceived notions available. Which, is obviously bad for a variety of reasons....
During these polarized times when censorship is rampant and diverse perspectives are hard to come by, I’m glad to have someone like the Daily Mail around. A recent example of a great article is their story on COVID vaccines potentially affecting menstruation (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9446907/Some-wome...), which they wrote about before any other major news media. Read for yourself and decide how you feel about the content.
If you build your business on clickbait and bullshit "journalism" you can't complain when your main source of traffic decides to squeeze a bit more cash out of your enormous money pit.
Cry me a river.