The Mail Online is the best source of news period.

SuperInfinity

There I've said it.

Everything is laid out so perfectly well, you can click on what you want. I think it is both the most enjoyable and optimal way of consuming news. As well as that, they have almost all the important articles from their actual paper. The comments section is excellent as well, and in particular where you can see the thumbs up or thumbs down of other readers. All of this makes it better than the Daily Mail itself or any print paper.

Sometimes they have a "slant" on things, but unlike other tabloids they aren't that sensational or have Jesus walking around Bristol type stories. And they're often more reliable than some of the broadsheets.

I feel sorry for the Mail having such an amazing online paper when they don't get paid anything except a little advertising for it. This is why on the odd occasion I'll actually buy the Daily Mail, but I'm sorry.... the website is just so good.

squod

Whats the bird on page 3 like?

News period?
Sounds yucky

Thomas_S_Hunterson

The website may be the best in the world but at the end of the day, you're reading The Daily MFail.

easyeason3

As fictional reading goes then yes, the mail can be good.

oppenheimer1

Well between it and the Sunday Independent it appears to be the only source for news on boards.ie

mikemac

I love reading the outrage in the comments section

You can pick any story and the comments will be full of shock and rage

4zn76tysfajdxp

SuperInfinity wrote: »

There I've said it.

Everything is laid out so perfectly well, you can click on what you want. I think it is both the most enjoyable and optimal way of consuming news. As well as that, they have almost all the important articles from their actual paper. The comments section is excellent as well, and in particular where you can see the thumbs up or thumbs down of other readers. All of this makes it better than the Daily Mail itself or any print paper.

Sometimes they have a "slant" on things, but unlike other tabloids they aren't that sensational or have Jesus walking around Bristol type stories. And they're often more reliable than some of the broadsheets.

I feel sorry for the Mail having such an amazing online paper when they don't get paid anything except a little advertising for it. This is why on the odd occasion I'll actually buy the Daily Mail, but I'm sorry.... the website is just so good.

Every single word in that post is untrue and a complete fallacy. You should write for the Mail.

steddyeddy

The mail are one of the biggest funders of yeti finding expiditions

baltimore sun

laid out well?
Bah! Shows how much attention you paid in art/tech drawing, it looks like a dog's dinner that's been barfed back up onto a plate of bad sauerkraut,
Irish Times has a nice website, so does Breaking News (not a paper I know but good for news), of the English papers, I'd reckon The Guardian and The Telegraph are the best, but the Telegraph is terrible conservative.

bonerm

I like how they frequently name the street the subject of their article lives on and then compound matters by having them posing right outside their home meaning I (or anyone else for that matter) can locate precisely where they live.

SEPT 23 1989

The Mail is the only independent news outlet in this country

Superbus

Did they promise you sex for this? Because they have a tendency to renege on promises like that.

Just don't get your hopes up.

Pace2008

Obvious trolling attempt is obvious.

Dotsie~tmp

I'd be lying if I said I didnt click those salacious little square stories on the right hand side from time to time . Still a rag though like most of em.

SuperInfinity

baltimore sun wrote: »

laid out well?
Bah! Shows how much attention you paid in art/tech drawing, it looks like a dog's dinner that's been barfed back up onto a plate of bad sauerkraut,
Irish Times has a nice website, so does Breaking News (not a paper I know but good for news), of the English papers, I'd reckon The Guardian and The Telegraph are the best, but the Telegraph is terrible conservative.

What the hell are you on about? Like I could give a **** what your art/tech drawing class said. Surely what matters is how a person can view it???

As if your art/tech drawing class could show you the "correct" way of laying out a website, are you off your rocker or what...

baltimore sun

SuperInfinity wrote: »

What the hell are you on about? Like I could give a **** what your art/tech drawing class said. Surely what matters is how a person can view it???

As if your art/tech drawing class could show you the "correct" way of laying out a website, are you off your rocker or what...

I was talking about your teachers :rolleyes:
of course there's a correct way to design a site, would you put the About page on the top of a news website? Nope. What about the Terms & Conditions? Would you also like to put that in a sidebar? Naw, you'd stick them at the bottom, ergo there is actually a "correct" way to design a website. You would also stick the title on at the top and the links to other sections very close to that, usually a nav bar either beneath or over the title of the website.

The Mail's site is too busy/cluttered. Their choice of using a dark blue for headlines with a lighter shade of blue for the subheads is quite silly.
While the site is quite east to navigate the landing page is far too long, to get to the bottom of the page you need to turn the mouse 5 or 6 times or press Page Down over 20 times.

But it's got loads of pictures and the Mails target market like pictures

Up de Barrs

"Secret disease carried by foreigners causes house prices to fall" - ultimate Daily Mail headline.

raymann

its a guilty pleasure of mine. i go down the home page doing open in new tab to all the pages that interest me.

i think you need to take your news from a variety of sources, as they all have their agenda.

read their review of kick ass though if you want a laugh. talk about hysterical overreaction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-1262948/Kick-Ass-Dont-fooled-hype--This-crime-cinema-twisted-cynical-revels-abuse-childhood.html

SuperInfinity

Get the hell out of my topic and my internets baltimore sun, total idiot nonsense. Thanks for the replies by other posters.

coonecb1

The only use I find for it is if I want to look at fresh pictures of Kerry Katona's cleavage.

Other than that I take it's news content with a pinch of salt. It is quite right-leaning after all.

Daily Mail, 10 July 1933

Ah, yeah, Daily Mail, they have a history of backing the wrong horse:

Daily Mail, 10 July 1933 wrote:

"I urge all British young men and women to study closely the progress of the Nazi regime in Germany. They must not be misled by the misrepresentations of its opponents. The most spiteful distracters of the Nazis are to be found in precisely the same sections of the British public and press as are most vehement in their praises of the Soviet regime in Russia. They have started a clamorous campaign of denunciation against what they call "Nazi atrocities" which, as anyone who visits Germany quickly discovers for himself, consists merely of a few isolated acts of violence such as are inevitable among a nation half as big again as ours, but which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny."

Ehhhhhhh..........

baltimore sun

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Get the hell out of my topic and my internets baltimore sun, total idiot nonsense. Thanks for the replies by other posters.

Charming :rolleyes: I bid you good day squire

xxshebeexx

I quite like the layout too.. for a quick browse, it's so much better than the Independent or Breaking News!

This thread reminds me of the "OK, so the Nazis were a teensy bit evil.......but weren't they impeccably dressed!? So fab!" thread.

Who the f*clk cares what they looked like. they were Nazis. *Points gun at Nazi. -BANG-* Now it's a good looking Nazi.

barbiegirl

It's my guilty pleasure too especially the femail and showbiz sections. They never publish my comments though I think i'm too Irish, working woman, centre minded for them :-)

AnonoBoy

A polished turd is still a turd.

markesmith

It's no Weekly World News

parker kent

feelingstressed wrote: »

I love reading the outrage in the comments section

You can pick any story and the comments will be full of shock and rage

I particularly love when they say "What would Princess Di think?".

th3 s1aught3r

SuperInfinity wrote: »

There I've said it.


Sometimes they have a "slant" on things, but unlike other tabloids they aren't that sensational or have Jesus walking around Bristol type stories. And they're often more reliable than some of the broadsheets.

They seem to appeal to the reactionary , hang em high mob with quite provocotive headlines. They also have quite a racist slant to their stories when they can

AnonoBoy

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

They seem to appeal to the reactionary , hang em high mob with quite provocotive headlines. They also have quite a racist slant to their stories when they can

They love a bit of not-so-subtle homophobia too.

G'wan Jan Moir!

Nodin

AnonoBoy wrote: »

They love a bit of not-so-subtle homophobia too.

G'wan Jan Moir!

Moir? Liberal.

“Abortion hope after “gay genes” finding” is the Mail being true to itself.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/KitzingerGayGene.pdf

Micky Dolenz

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Get the hell out of my topic and my internets baltimore sun, total idiot nonsense. Thanks for the replies by other posters.

The topic belongs to AH now, not you,not me, not anyone.

Quit the back seat modding.

walshb

SuperInfinity wrote: »

There I've said it.

Everything is laid out so perfectly well, you can click on what you want. I think it is both the most enjoyable and optimal way of consuming news. As well as that, they have almost all the important articles from their actual paper. The comments section is excellent as well, and in particular where you can see the thumbs up or thumbs down of other readers. All of this makes it better than the Daily Mail itself or any print paper.

Sometimes they have a "slant" on things, but unlike other tabloids they aren't that sensational or have Jesus walking around Bristol type stories. And they're often more reliable than some of the broadsheets.

I feel sorry for the Mail having such an amazing online paper when they don't get paid anything except a little advertising for it. This is why on the odd occasion I'll actually buy the Daily Mail, but I'm sorry.... the website is just so good.

It is an exceptional website. So so detailed and informative, but almost too much bloody detail. The paper is also top notch.

Many here slate thr paper, but they still read it. It reports the hard facts, gets the real news, details and juicy bits. And all you hear here is, "It's a rag."

It's not a rag. It is a great read. The Health and education and science sections are so amazing. It covers everything.

walshb

easyeason3 wrote: »

As fictional reading goes then yes, the mail can be good.

This is the snobbish, I am too good for the Mail, attitude. What is fictional?

Point to the stories that are fictional? You make it sound like the news they report is false, inaccurate.... I don't think so. They wouldn't be in business if they were reporting fictional news items.

OPENROAD

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

They seem to appeal to the reactionary , hang em high mob with quite provocotive headlines. They also have quite a racist slant to their stories when they can

Not quite that simplistic though, they campaigned endlessly for justice for Stephen Laurence.

Why is it that when the UK poses questions on immigration its racist, whereas when we pose questions its a debate that we must have and it has nothing to do with racism

AnonoBoy

walshb wrote: »

The Health and education and science sections are so amazing. It covers everything.

Sometimes it even covers both sides of the debate without knowing which one it believes:

The cervical vaccine is bad! No no it's good. Oh wait, maybe it's bad?

What's that called again?

Oh yeah, pandering to public opinion without any regard for facts or editorial consistency.

Not to mention one of their journalists discounting the deaths of five women in Ipswich as 'no great loss'.

If that's the type of reportage you want then fair play to you. However it's the type of gutter journalism that I believe makes the paper a rag.

walshb

That is just it, the problem is that too many here are too bloody sensitive when they hear the truth about issues like immigration. Straight away the race card is played..

I remember after Stephen Gately's death, the Mail ran an article questioning the circumstances surrounding his death. People here went ****ing crazy mad. I happened to see no problem, and I was banned fro AH... They asked questions and queried the whole circumstances, and people didn't want to read it or hear it.... I guess sometimes the truth does hurt

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

The Health and education and science sections are so amazing. It covers everything.

They're not. They're pseudoscience masquerading as fact. They skim studies, probably more accurately, press releases of those studies and inflate the findings. Much as they do with most other topics.

walshb

Millicent wrote: »

They're not. They're pseudoscience masquerading as fact. They skim studies, probably more accurately, press releases of those studies and inflate the findings. Much as they do with most other topics.

Any examples?

Bear in mind that the paper may print hundreds of Health and Science articles every week. Yes, some may be a little off, or contradictory, but that can be expected anywhere, and particularly when the topics may not be black and white...

Any news source in history can be criticised if we look hard enough. The Mail prints so so many articles, and most are accurate. Risky? Yes, but that soesn't mean that they are garbage or inaccurate or fictional.

I think most who slate the paper have a bias against it and its views.....

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

That is just it, the problem is that too many here are too bloody sensitive when they hear the truth about issues like immigration. Straight away the race card is played..

I remember after Stephen Gately's death, the Mail ran an article questioning the circumstances surrounding his death. People here went ****ing crazy mad. I happened to see no problem, and I was banned fro AH... They asked questions and queried the whole circumstances, and people didn't want to read it or hear it.... I guess sometimes the truth does hurt

No, people here went mad because she insinuated that his death was caused by some "private vice" before any details of the autopsy were released. Lo and behold, it turns out that Stephen did die from natural causes, facilitated by an underlying and undiagnosed pre-existing heart condition.

So what part of Moir's article do you reckon was justified? The ghoulish and morbid questioning of his lifestyle before his body was even cold? That's not even journalism. It's suspicious, unsubstantiated rumour-mongering.

AnonoBoy

walshb wrote: »

I happened to see no problem, and I was banned fro AH...

Were you banned for merely having no problem with the article or for something else perhaps?

I can't see how the AH mods would ban you for merely saying you agreed with an article or had no problem with one.

walshb

Millicent wrote: »

No, people here went mad because she insinuated that his death was caused by some "private vice" before any details of the autopsy were released. Lo and behold, it turns out that Stephen did die from natural causes, facilitated by an underlying and undiagnosed pre-existing heart condition.

So what part of Mori's article do you reckon was justified? The ghoulish and morbid questioning of his lifestyle before his body was even cold? That's not even journalism. It's suspicious, unsubstantiated rumour-mongering.

Yes, and the body was brought home and burned without even a second autopsy from the home country, Ireland. You think the Spanish gave a rats ass how he died. They could have been paid off for all you know. Half ass autopsy, get it done, ask no questions....

Jan Moir asked tough questions, people didn't like that, because it was about an Irishman, a gay Irishman who
died under circumstances that were a little odd.

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

Any examples?

Bear in mind that the paper may print hundreds of Health and Science articles every week. Yes, some may be a little off, or contradictory, but that can be expected anywhere, and particularly when the topics may not be black and white...

Any news source in history can be criticised if we look hard enough. The Mail prints so so many articles, and most are accurate. Risky? Yes, but that soesn't mean that they are garbage or inaccurate or fictional.

I think most who slate the paper have a bias against it and its views.....

Have you clicked Anonoboy's link? Even this article states that listeria can increase the risk of heart disease. The word they should be using is "may". One study does not prove a medical hypothesis. It's basic medical reporting to hedge your bets on things like this until the link has been conclusively proven.

Medical proof requires more substantiation than a single study but that's not how the Mail frames it. It's shoddy reportage.

BrianJD

I think if you want quality researched unbiased journalism then there is many more papers far better equipped and quality controlled.

However, for a magazine style coverage of non important things like showbiz then the website is very good.

I wouldn't buy the paper but I'll have a glimpse at the showbiz page as it's prob a bit less gay than looking at the mrs Now magazine :P

Thomas_S_Hunterson

walshb wrote: »

I think most who slate the paper have a bias against it and its views.....

I'm not entirely sure if your trolling or not but...

Plenty of news outlets manage to report facts without polluting them with a silly editorial slant which, for the DM, reeks of concerned parents and Joe Duffy.

The likes of the BBC and Al Jazeera are vastly superior.

Millicent

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and the body was brought home and burned without even a second autopsy from the home country, Ireland. You think the Spanish gave a rats ass how he died. They could have been paid off for all you know. Half ass autopsy, get it done, ask no questions....

Jan Moir asked tough questions, people didn't like that, because it was about an Irishman, a gay Irishman who
died under circumstances that were a little odd.

Spain is not some Mickey Mouse banana republic with no medical standards. Also, a pulmonary oedema and heart problems are easy to differentiate from drug-induced or alcohol-induced disease.

AnonoBoy

BrianJD wrote: »

However, for a magazine style coverage of non important things like showbiz then the website is very good.

I cannot take issue with its celeb coverage.

I don't read papers that do big celeb spreads so I can't compare.

SuperInfinity

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Sometimes it even covers both sides of the debate without knowing which one it believes:

The cervical vaccine is bad! No no it's good. Oh wait, maybe it's bad?

What's that called again?

Oh yeah, pandering to public opinion without any regard for facts or editorial consistency.

The only "extraordinary two-faced editorial" is on that site itself. Here are over a half a dozen pro-vaccine articles that were published in the UK.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-398186/Cervical-cancer-vaccine-sale-weeks.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-364628/Wonder-drug-mark-end-cervical-cancer.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-15082/Cervical-cancer-vaccine-hope.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1328284/Jab-turning-cervical-cancer-rare-disease-spell-end-regular-smear-tests.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-463602/Why-giving-daughters-cervical-cancer-jab.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1216942/Cervical-cancer-vaccine-programme-chaos-death-schoolgirl-14-hours-jab.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1244724/Number-women-30-cervical-cancer-fall-thirds-2025-thanks-HPV-vaccine.html

All that blog author did was selectively pick the articles that fit his fantasy. It was just a fantasy editorial by the person in question.

It just goes to show how naive you are that you actually believed that. Just what a random person off the internet is saying, ridiculous. Intelligent people actually investigate claims without accepting them for no reason whatsoever.

AnonoBoy

I'd like to hear your take on the Ipswich murders article and the cervical vaccine article that I've linked to walshb.

AnonoBoy

SuperInfinity wrote: »

The only "extraordinary two-faced editorial" is on that site itself. Here are over a half a dozen pro-vaccine articles that were published in the UK.

So their editorial stance on it was "We need this wonder drug/No it's bad/No we need it/No it's bad"

That's the sort of consistency you want from a brilliant health and science section alright!

All you've shown is that they campaigned both for and against it in both the English and Irish editions of the paper which is pretty much exactly what I was saying.

Did the author of the blog plant all those anti-vaccine stories on the Mail's website then?