Jump to content

Daily Mail banned from Wikipedia


Wee Willie

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

The Daily Mail's found its place in the market by being as deliberately provocative and outrageous as possible either with its content or clickbait headlines. Is it not the world's most read news site or thereabouts? It is utterly vile though.

Forget the politics. The Daily Fail's success is due to its fawning and brainless coverage of Z list celebrities. The Americans love that nonsense. Its US audience has driven up its advertising revenue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Forget the politics. The Daily Fail's success is due to its fawning and brainless coverage of Z list celebrities. The Americans love that nonsense. Its US audience has driven up its advertising revenue.  

As a business model it's exemplary.  

Is The FT the only respectable 'organ of record' we have remaining?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comments section wise you're not going to beat the Guardian for being consistently filled with up itself intellectual racism and snobbery.



Not sure why I specified the comments section when Comment is Free writers are almost uniformly bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

As a business model it's exemplary.  

Is The FT the only respectable 'organ of record' we have remaining?

The FT is respectable? It supported Neil Kinnock for PM in 1992! :lol:

It must be the only anti-capitalist financial "newspaper" in the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would ye naw be ragin' if ye were a Daily Mail reader tho'?

It was always a Tory paper, and biased in that regard, but it wasn't full of hysterics and nonsense (that was up to the Express) but it's just dropped so far so quickly. This was the paper that took up the Steven Lawrence story and forced widespread changes in the Met not that long ago.

I would not be too sure about that.

Or have you forgotten about the Zinoviev letter?

6edaac5d60e2c65b993334386e1f2e03.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a business model it's exemplary.  
Is The FT the only respectable 'organ of record' we have remaining?


Disgusting lack of respect for the Daily Star here. There's a paper that knows its remit and sticks rigidly to it. I have a lot of respect for a paper that has readers who, in the age of Google, will pay the standard network rate to get a newspaper to print a picture of a page 3 model's tits in their letters page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bishop Briggs said:

The FT is respectable? It supported Neil Kinnock for PM in 1992! :lol:

It must be the only anti-capitalist financial "newspaper" in the West.

The FT is a brilliant read and can occupy me for a return trip to London or a single trip to Brum.  In comparison everything else is like the Sunday Post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NotThePars said:

 


Disgusting lack of respect for the Daily Star here. There's a paper that knows its remit and sticks rigidly to it. I have a lot of respect for a paper that has readers who, in the age of Google, will pay the standard network rate to get a newspaper to print a picture of a page 3 model's tits in their letters page.

 

I get my fill of tits on the Sevco threads, buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Heil, but it's obvious this move was prompted more by a recent opinion piece about global warming that would not have gone down well with the hard core true believers in melting ice caps than anything related to Melania Trump alleged past escapades, because they tend to be amongst the most obsessive-compulsive wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is seen by most as an unreliable source given the way it is open for revision by anyone online, so it probably doesn't matter that much in the big scheme of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Heil, but it's obvious this move was prompted more by a recent opinion piece about global warming that would not have gone down well with the hard core true believers in melting ice caps than anything related to Melania Trump alleged past escapades, because they tend to be amongst the most obsessive-compulsive wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is seen by most as an unreliable source given the way it is open for revision by anyone online, so it probably doesn't matter that much in the big scheme of things.


The hard core true believers? In global warming?

So are you one of the alternative facts guys?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think anthropogenic global warming is definitely happening to some extent, the clue being in the word greenhouse as to why there is solid evidence for a greenhouse effect, but think there are crazed loons on both sides that are willing to twist data to fit their preferred dogma and are not interested in behaving in a manner that is consistent with the scientific method. Having carefully read up on it over the years the lower end IPCC predictions are really not that big a deal and the evidence for truly catastrophic levels of warming that would lead to melted ice caps is far from convincing. There is plenty of middle ground available on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think anthropogenic global warming is definitely happening to some extent, the clue being in the word greenhouse as to why there is solid evidence for a greenhouse effect, but think there are crazed loons on both sides that are willing to twist data to fit their preferred dogma and are not interested in behaving in a manner that is consistent with the scientific method. Having carefully read up on it over the years the lower end IPCC predictions are really not that big a deal and the evidence for truly catastrophic levels of warming that would lead to melted ice caps is far from convincing. There is plenty of middle ground available on this.


Loons on both sides? But not in equal measures, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Loons on both sides? But not in equal measures, surely?

I have a problem with the way the issue has been politicised by both sides, because once that happens the people involved stop being impartial rational actors and that's a major problem when a field of science is involved where there is a strong emphasis on computer modelling in terms of proxy data for past climate reconstructions and future predictions as opposed to laboratory experiments that can easily be directly tested in a reproducible manner. Best to be wary of people who claim to definitely know all the answers either way, but I am very much in the camp that sees a move to renewable energy sources as the way to go. Unfortunately, I don't think the argument has been won on that to the extent it should have been by now whether it be based on climate science arguments or concerns over the Hubbert curve and peak oil, which I tend to find more compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Wee Willie said:

I took up your challenge and went tae the website.
And this is the headline news of the day.

This is the first headline at the top of the page:
Revealed: The drunk Cambridge University student (and relative of Nicola Sturgeon)
who taunted a freezing homeless person by setting fire to a £20 note in front of him

Edit: I forgot about the comment section but I shall return later.

BTW dinnae ask me what that headline has to do with Nicola - ask the Daily Mail.

I saw that on twitter today. Jesus.

 

C4SUZJzW8AAe5mI.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...