Boards hatred of The Daily Mail

Son Of A Vidic

I think the Daily Mail is a wonderful paper and vastly underrated. In fact, it is always the first paper I reach for when I've run out of 'Hole Roll'..

Capt'n Midnight

How can one not be fond of something that the "Daily Mail" despises? ...
Stephen Fry

Dave!

walshb wrote: »

Sometimes the truth is terrifying.

Anyway, I'd love if boards could do a check on all the links posted on this website over the last whenever and see which news source came out on top?

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Mail, which really would throw a spanner in the works for all those anti Mailites

Not sure what that would prove champ

I could post up a thread from Stormfront and it would generate alot of discussion, does that prove something too?

I'd say most Daily Mail-generated thread on boards have at least one post saying "the Daily Mail is a disgusting rag" with about a thousand thanks on the end of it.

Your defending of it makes me lul intensely

It's a disgusting, moronic, immoral piece of sh*t newspaper

m@cc@

Dave! wrote: »

Not sure what that would prove champ

I could post up a thread from Stormfront and it would generate alot of discussion, does that prove something too?

I'd say most Daily Mail-generated thread on boards have at least one post saying "the Daily Mail is a disgusting rag" with about a thousand thanks on the end of it.

Your defending of it makes me lul intensely

It's a disgusting, moronic, immoral piece of sh*t newspaper

A previous post by the quoted poster in regards to Polish women:

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, no disrespect, I don't see it at all. Give me a good looking Irish girl any day of the week. Something cleaner about them...

Ah, the fog has parted.

PeterIanStaker

Angus Og wrote: »

It goes back aways.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/antiirish-newspaper-plans-to-launch-edition-here-472742.html

oh the irony!

Lemegeton

stories like this is why the daily mail and 90% of newspapers are ****rags

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256641/Cheyenne-Alexis-McKeehan-3-dead-mistaking-handgun-Wii-control.html

its a ****ing 3 year old. they pick everything up. they would swallow plutonium if it was on the kitchen table. this story should read
"tragic toddler shot and killed herself with fathers gun. Parents arrested for criminal negligence"

Capt'n Midnight

Lemegeton wrote: »

stories like this is why the daily mail and 90% of newspapers are ****rags

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256641/Cheyenne-Alexis-McKeehan-3-dead-mistaking-handgun-Wii-control.html

its a ****ing 3 year old. they pick everything up. they would swallow plutonium if it was on the kitchen table. this story should read
"tragic toddler shot and killed herself with fathers gun. Parents arrested for criminal negligence"

Actually it was her step-father
but the whole thing about not having genes in common is another topic

ejmaztec

I hope that this is going to be fun.:pac:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/11/facebook-daily-mail
Facebook threatens to sue Daily Mail

Social networking site fears reputation permanently damaged by false claim that it let older men pressure teenage girls for sex.


Facebook has threatened to sue the Daily Mail for damages after the paper wrongly claimed in a piece published on Wednesday that 14-year-old girls who create a profile on the social networking site could be approached "within seconds" by older men who "wanted to perform a sex act" in front of them.
The paper apologised in print today and online yesterday for the error, which the author of the piece, Mark Williams-Thomas, insisted had been introduced by editors at the paper despite being told it was wrong. In fact, Williams-Thomas – a retired policeman who now works as a criminologist – had been using another, unspecified social network.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Go Facebook!

Makes you wonder how careless the editing is, though, to specifically name a website in the first place, let alone get it wrong

hooradiation

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Go Facebook!

Makes you wonder how careless the editing is, though, to specifically name a website in the first place, let alone get it wrong

I imagine it's very careful. Doing stuff like this and then sheepishly appologising later is very much the mails M.O

After all when a paper decides to dictate to you how you should feel about a story as opposed to reporting the news then staying on message is more important than impartiality, accuracy or the truth.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hooradiation wrote: »

I imagine it's very careful. Doing stuff like this and then sheepishly appologising later is very much the mails M.O

After all when a paper decides to dictate to you how you should feel about a story as opposed to reporting the news then staying on message is more important than impartiality, accuracy or the truth.

I´d imagine it´s seriously slack. if you want to go down the naiming route (which isn´t essential - just make a few key observations), it´s very simple to write ¨Rumoured to be Facebook¨ or ¨A source close to the Mail discolsed Facebook¨ in order to cover yourself. The key word ¨Facebook¨ still appears in people´s minds; job done. And perfect cover if someone sues you.

hooradiation

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I´d imagine it´s seriously slack. if you want to go down the naiming route (which isn´t essential - just make a few key observations), it´s very simple to write ¨Rumoured to be Facebook¨ or ¨A source close to the Mail discolsed Facebook¨ in order to cover yourself. The key word ¨Facebook¨ still appears in people´s minds; job done. And perfect cover if someone sues you.

Sorry, my implication was they are very careful to purposefully do stuff like this, just because the short term gain in sales and readership is worth the eventual settlement in court that their readers won't remember/read about.
But they will remember how the mail told them off about the "paedos on the facepage thingy" and that's what counts.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hooradiation wrote: »

Sorry, my implication was they are very careful to purposefully do stuff like this, just because the short term gain in sales and readership is worth the eventual settlement in court that their readers won't remember/read about.
But they will remember how the mail told them off about the "paedos on the facepage thingy" and that's what counts.

Apologies, they don´t care about. Getting sued and lawyers fees will outweigh any extra costs.