Daily Mail

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Daily Mail

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Hoof Hearted 10 Feb 17 12.34pm
Originally posted by OknotOK Sort of missing the point? Wiki isn't claiming it is (more) reliable; it is claiming that when people want to cite/source something that the Daily Mail has proven to be an unreliable one. It is saying that in too many instances, when people have used the Daily Mail as a source it has been proven to be incorrect. The Mail should possibly be offended at the comparison to say RT or Fox News, both of which are still allowable. It doesn't matter what Wiki claims or doesn't claim neither would be correct because it is a standing joke in itself as PTJ demonstrated earlier. That was the Irony and the only point I was making. The trouble is, no matter how bad you think the Mail is, ALL other news publications or Media have their flaws and are unreliable. For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 10 Feb 17 12.34pm

Originally posted by OknotOK

Sort of missing the point? Wiki isn't claiming it is (more) reliable; it is claiming that when people want to cite/source something that the Daily Mail has proven to be an unreliable one.

It is saying that in too many instances, when people have used the Daily Mail as a source it has been proven to be incorrect.

The Mail should possibly be offended at the comparison to say RT or Fox News, both of which are still allowable.

It doesn't matter what Wiki claims or doesn't claim neither would be correct because it is a standing joke in itself as PTJ demonstrated earlier.

That was the Irony and the only point I was making.

The trouble is, no matter how bad you think the Mail is, ALL other news publications or Media have their flaws and are unreliable.

For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 10 Feb 17 12.48pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted That hasn't stopped Corbyn from carrying on as Labour leader after he demonstrated all these 'qualities' with the stunt he pulled on the Virgin train shown sat down in the corridor because he couldn't find a seat despite the train's CCTV actually showing him walking past loads of empty seats beforehand. Is Jezza exempt from vilification for "poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication?" Edited by Hoof Hearted (10 Feb 2017 12.08pm) There is a 'Jeremy Corbyn' thread here for you why not use it.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 10 Feb 17 12.48pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

That hasn't stopped Corbyn from carrying on as Labour leader after he demonstrated all these 'qualities' with the stunt he pulled on the Virgin train shown sat down in the corridor because he couldn't find a seat despite the train's CCTV actually showing him walking past loads of empty seats beforehand.

Is Jezza exempt from vilification for "poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication?"

Edited by Hoof Hearted (10 Feb 2017 12.08pm)

There is a 'Jeremy Corbyn' thread here for you why not use it.

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 10 Feb 17 12.49pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted It doesn't matter what Wiki claims or doesn't claim neither would be correct because it is a standing joke in itself as PTJ demonstrated earlier. That was the Irony and the only point I was making. The trouble is, no matter how bad you think the Mail is, ALL other news publications or Media have their flaws and are unreliable. For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth. The BBC are far more likely to be correct than the Daily Mail. When they are wrong, it tends to be a mistake rather than a blatant lie as is often the case with the Daily Mail. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 10 Feb 17 12.49pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

It doesn't matter what Wiki claims or doesn't claim neither would be correct because it is a standing joke in itself as PTJ demonstrated earlier.

That was the Irony and the only point I was making.

The trouble is, no matter how bad you think the Mail is, ALL other news publications or Media have their flaws and are unreliable.

For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth.

The BBC are far more likely to be correct than the Daily Mail.

When they are wrong, it tends to be a mistake rather than a blatant lie as is often the case with the Daily Mail.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 10 Feb 17 12.51pm
Originally posted by steeleye20 There is a 'Jeremy Corbyn' thread here for you why not use it. It's called networking steeleye... Jezza's fatal indiscretions leading to Labour's downfall have a relevance on most threads we discuss on here Comrade.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 10 Feb 17 12.51pm

Originally posted by steeleye20

There is a 'Jeremy Corbyn' thread here for you why not use it.

It's called networking steeleye... Jezza's fatal indiscretions leading to Labour's downfall have a relevance on most threads we discuss on here Comrade.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 10 Feb 17 12.53pm
Originally posted by Username The BBC are far more likely to be correct than the Daily Mail. When they are wrong, it tends to be a mistake rather than a blatant lie as is often the case with the Daily Mail. You keep believing that Comrade.... I'm sure it is a comfort to you.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 10 Feb 17 12.53pm

Originally posted by Username

The BBC are far more likely to be correct than the Daily Mail.

When they are wrong, it tends to be a mistake rather than a blatant lie as is often the case with the Daily Mail.

You keep believing that Comrade.... I'm sure it is a comfort to you.

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 10 Feb 17 12.55pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted It's called networking steeleye... Jezza's fatal indiscretions leading to Labour's downfall have a relevance on most threads we discuss on here Comrade. You try to change the subject of the thread to one that suits you because you have no argument
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 10 Feb 17 12.55pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

It's called networking steeleye... Jezza's fatal indiscretions leading to Labour's downfall have a relevance on most threads we discuss on here Comrade.

You try to change the subject of the thread to one that suits you because you have no argument

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 10 Feb 17 12.56pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted You keep believing that Comrade.... I'm sure it is a comfort to you. Well argued. You really got him with that one. Fact is the BBC veer towards those in power whoever it is.
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 10 Feb 17 12.56pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

You keep believing that Comrade.... I'm sure it is a comfort to you.

Well argued. You really got him with that one.

Fact is the BBC veer towards those in power whoever it is.

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 10 Feb 17 1.09pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth. You should have finished your quote with the words "any more"
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

10 Feb 17 1.09pm

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth.

You should have finished your quote with the words "any more"

Alert a moderator to this post

Username Horsham 10 Feb 17 1.19pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted You keep believing that Comrade.... I'm sure it is a comfort to you. Comrade? If the BBC is so left wing why are Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg such senior Political reporters? Why do they spend so much time discussing the problems/issues of the Labour party including (but not limited to) in recent years extensive coverage of the 'anti-semitism' scandal, or the huge questions over Corbyn's leadership. I don't seem to remember as much coverage given to Boris Johnson's racist comments? Why have they spent 10 years giving Nigel Farage/UKIP so much coverage? Before the last General Election they were given a huge platform compared to the Green Party (who at that stage actually had an MP, UKIP didn't). If they are so left wing why don't they push/promote the Green Party more? Maybe, just maybe, they are actually fairly well balanced which is why people from both the left and the right claim it's biased. Still, you go on trusting the paper that used a picture of Winston Churchill's statue (you know, the Churchill who called for a United States of Europe) to signify lift off for Brexit. Who branded independent judges executing their job as 'enemies' of the people while conveniently burying the story about the Jo Cox murder trial. Who made up stories about Romanian's and Bulgarians booking flights to move here when they joined the EU. Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Username

Horsham 10 Feb 17 1.19pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

You keep believing that Comrade.... I'm sure it is a comfort to you.

Comrade?

If the BBC is so left wing why are Andrew Neil and Laura Kuenssberg such senior Political reporters?

Why do they spend so much time discussing the problems/issues of the Labour party including (but not limited to) in recent years extensive coverage of the 'anti-semitism' scandal, or the huge questions over Corbyn's leadership. I don't seem to remember as much coverage given to Boris Johnson's racist comments?

Why have they spent 10 years giving Nigel Farage/UKIP so much coverage? Before the last General Election they were given a huge platform compared to the Green Party (who at that stage actually had an MP, UKIP didn't). If they are so left wing why don't they push/promote the Green Party more?

Maybe, just maybe, they are actually fairly well balanced which is why people from both the left and the right claim it's biased.

Still, you go on trusting the paper that used a picture of Winston Churchill's statue (you know, the Churchill who called for a United States of Europe) to signify lift off for Brexit. Who branded independent judges executing their job as 'enemies' of the people while conveniently burying the story about the Jo Cox murder trial. Who made up stories about Romanian's and Bulgarians booking flights to move here when they joined the EU.

Employee of the month is a good example of how someone can be both a winner and a loser at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK Cockfosters, London 10 Feb 17 2.03pm
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted It doesn't matter what Wiki claims or doesn't claim neither would be correct because it is a standing joke in itself as PTJ demonstrated earlier. That was the Irony and the only point I was making. The trouble is, no matter how bad you think the Mail is, ALL other news publications or Media have their flaws and are unreliable. For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth. I actually didn't comment on whether I think the Mail is a reliable or unreliable source, other than to say I think they should be offended to be deemed less reliable than RT or Fox News. And yes the BBC is obviously not 100% reliable. Having said that the BBC is demonstrably more reliable than the Daily Mail, and the Mail Online. That surely can't be seriously in question. Primarily that will be because much of the Mail's content is the product of gossip (celebrity, sporting, or otherwise). I tend to believe that journalists aren't, for the most part, deliberately attempting to mislead. They all have their own bias which is impossible to avoid entirely. But I think most pieces of misinformation will be the result of errors, rather than willful propaganda. Within the BBC, there is always a bias towards the incumbent government (as it allows them better access, plus there is naturally more interest in stories about the government who can actually do something, rather than the opposition or other parties who can't), but it is nowhere near as entrenched or one-sided as that for other publications/media (including the Mail). "It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show
Alert a moderator to this post

OknotOK

Cockfosters, London 10 Feb 17 2.03pm

Originally posted by Hoof Hearted

It doesn't matter what Wiki claims or doesn't claim neither would be correct because it is a standing joke in itself as PTJ demonstrated earlier.

That was the Irony and the only point I was making.

The trouble is, no matter how bad you think the Mail is, ALL other news publications or Media have their flaws and are unreliable.

For a start I would not trust the BBC to be impartial or relied upon for the truth.

I actually didn't comment on whether I think the Mail is a reliable or unreliable source, other than to say I think they should be offended to be deemed less reliable than RT or Fox News. And yes the BBC is obviously not 100% reliable.

Having said that the BBC is demonstrably more reliable than the Daily Mail, and the Mail Online. That surely can't be seriously in question.

Primarily that will be because much of the Mail's content is the product of gossip (celebrity, sporting, or otherwise).

I tend to believe that journalists aren't, for the most part, deliberately attempting to mislead. They all have their own bias which is impossible to avoid entirely. But I think most pieces of misinformation will be the result of errors, rather than willful propaganda.

Within the BBC, there is always a bias towards the incumbent government (as it allows them better access, plus there is naturally more interest in stories about the government who can actually do something, rather than the opposition or other parties who can't), but it is nowhere near as entrenched or one-sided as that for other publications/media (including the Mail).

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

Alert a moderator to this post

Bert the Head Epsom 10 Feb 17 10.22pm
Originally posted by Willo I am an avid reader of the 'Daily Mail' and have been for many,many a year.I read it with great relish each and every day. “A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.” Oscar Wilde Edited by Bert the Head (10 Feb 2017 10.22pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Bert the Head

Epsom 10 Feb 17 10.22pm

Originally posted by Willo

I am an avid reader of the 'Daily Mail' and have been for many,many a year.I read it with great relish each and every day.

“A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.”
Oscar Wilde

Edited by Bert the Head (10 Feb 2017 10.22pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy Deal or Croydon 10 Feb 17 10.47pm
Originally posted by Bert the Head “A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.” Oscar Wilde Edited by Bert the Head (10 Feb 2017 10.22pm) Why does reading the mail mean he cant think for himself?
Alert a moderator to this post

sickboy

Deal or Croydon 10 Feb 17 10.47pm

Originally posted by Bert the Head

“A man who does not think for himself does not think at all.”
Oscar Wilde

Edited by Bert the Head (10 Feb 2017 10.22pm)

Why does reading the mail mean he cant think for himself?

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Daily Mail

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors