5 ms·

"Attention grabbing"? It's a tabloid paper. That's what tabloid papers are for. As for "wildly inaccurate", it simply has quite a strong bias, but so do lots of

by jgranby 17y ago

"Attention grabbing"? It's a tabloid paper. That's what tabloid papers are for. As for "wildly inaccurate", it simply has quite a strong bias, but so do lots of papers. The Guardian is no less partisan. I wouldn't buy a copy of the Mail, but I'm tired of reading fatuous name-calling of this sort from people who've never read the paper.

jacquesm 17y ago
So, you wouldn't buy a copy and yet you claim others have never read it ? To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian. How about faceless aliens spotted at Wimbledon ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-aliens-spotted-crowd-Wimbledon.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-ali... Or this one ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491757/First-pictures-reveal-success-life-saving-surgery-toddler-limbs.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491757/First-picture... or this ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1160904/Research-brains-God-spot-reveals-areas-brain-involved-religious-belief.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1160904/Resea... I rest my case.
- yangyang 17y ago
  The second story you link to was also covered in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/10/india.international http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/10/india.internatio... The third was covered in the Independent, a (former) broadsheet which I think most would consider as respectable as the Guardian: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-bra... [edit] And the first story was covered in the Telegraph, another broadsheet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2238138/Faceless-figures-cause-a-stir-at-Wimbledon-Harrods-and-Elton-Johns-ball.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2238... The news in the Mail might be a bit hyped but it's not "wildly inaccurate". I don't read it either, and wouldn't, but it's not exactly The Daily Sport.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    re. the second story: Indeed, but the pictures were left out. Maybe someone had that rare quality called tact ?
    - yangyang 17y ago
      Tact has nothing to do with accuracy, which was what you were commenting on. Tabloids by their nature print many more photos.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        Just in case: http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/how_the_daily_mail_misrepresen.html http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/how_the_daily_mail_misreprese... http://5cc.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-daily-mail-lies-about-immigration_25.html http://5cc.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-daily-mail-lies-about-im... Of course, now you can say that's just two examples, and then I can go back and find another 10, and so on.
- GavinB 17y ago
  The "faceless aliens" story is about real people walking around with masks on. The story itself points that out: Close inspection of the pictures rules out an alien invasion - small perforations around the eye areas of the masks allow the people beneath to see the world outside. It then goes on to speculate that they're part of a viral marketing campaign or celebrities in disguise. Lightweight and lowbrow, sure, but they aren't just making up tabloid lies.
- jgranby 17y ago
  So, you wouldn't buy a copy and yet you claim others have never read it? My parents buy it, so I've read it fairly often at their house, but, no, I wouldn't buy it myself. So yes, I have read it on many occasions, while most of those who bash it do so without having ever read a copy. To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian. I didn't put them in the same column: as I said, the Mail is a tabloid. All I said is that both are heavily biased, which is true. Each writes with its own audience in mind: Guardian readers won't like what's written in the Mail, and vice-versa. Accusations beyond this, such as yours of "wildly inaccurate journalism", are more exaggerated and sensational than any Mail headline.

by jgranby 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

So, you wouldn't buy a copy and yet you claim others have never read it ? To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian. How about faceless aliens spotted at Wimbledon ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-aliens-spotted-crowd-Wimbledon.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-ali... Or this one ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491757/First-pictures-reveal-success-life-saving-surgery-toddler-limbs.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491757/First-picture... or this ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1160904/Research-brains-God-spot-reveals-areas-brain-involved-religious-belief.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1160904/Resea... I rest my case.

yangyang 17y ago
The second story you link to was also covered in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/10/india.international http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/10/india.internatio... The third was covered in the Independent, a (former) broadsheet which I think most would consider as respectable as the Guardian: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-bra... [edit] And the first story was covered in the Telegraph, another broadsheet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2238138/Faceless-figures-cause-a-stir-at-Wimbledon-Harrods-and-Elton-Johns-ball.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2238... The news in the Mail might be a bit hyped but it's not "wildly inaccurate". I don't read it either, and wouldn't, but it's not exactly The Daily Sport.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  re. the second story: Indeed, but the pictures were left out. Maybe someone had that rare quality called tact ?
  - yangyang 17y ago
    Tact has nothing to do with accuracy, which was what you were commenting on. Tabloids by their nature print many more photos.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      Just in case: http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/how_the_daily_mail_misrepresen.html http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/how_the_daily_mail_misreprese... http://5cc.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-daily-mail-lies-about-immigration_25.html http://5cc.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-daily-mail-lies-about-im... Of course, now you can say that's just two examples, and then I can go back and find another 10, and so on.
GavinB 17y ago
The "faceless aliens" story is about real people walking around with masks on. The story itself points that out: Close inspection of the pictures rules out an alien invasion - small perforations around the eye areas of the masks allow the people beneath to see the world outside. It then goes on to speculate that they're part of a viral marketing campaign or celebrities in disguise. Lightweight and lowbrow, sure, but they aren't just making up tabloid lies.
jgranby 17y ago
So, you wouldn't buy a copy and yet you claim others have never read it? My parents buy it, so I've read it fairly often at their house, but, no, I wouldn't buy it myself. So yes, I have read it on many occasions, while most of those who bash it do so without having ever read a copy. To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian. I didn't put them in the same column: as I said, the Mail is a tabloid. All I said is that both are heavily biased, which is true. Each writes with its own audience in mind: Guardian readers won't like what's written in the Mail, and vice-versa. Accusations beyond this, such as yours of "wildly inaccurate journalism", are more exaggerated and sensational than any Mail headline.