- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A leading doctor who threw a backyard party for his sister’s birthday in Queens claims their group was ‘hosed’ with water by a ‘racist’ white neighbor during a noise dispute, according to a lawsuit.
It’s possible you have your own bias in play. You can enter them in this link from the politics community to check reliability and leanings:
https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Daily Mail is generally considered moderate to more reliable, accumulatively reporting in the middle between right and left. It’s not the best, but it’s hardly what you’re making it out to be.
Bullshit. The Daily Mail is considered no better than Fox News in the UK. Wikipedia bans it as a source for a reason.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
Yes, that was in 2017 for a variety of reasons, and since then they’ve tried to straighten it up a bit, and have gotten awards and accolades from the British Press etc.
So they’re not entirely terrible now. I despise Fox News so I should despise the Daily Mail, but recently I haven’t read stories like these from them that raise any issues. But then again when I’m looking for information on important things, I’m not going to them either.
edit: and it’s entirely possible that my viewpoint is slanted as a US reader who mainly recognizes bullshit in US-related stories, where they may default to just reporting what they’re told or have read about a thing and don’t bother to twist it much. That could be true.
And in 2023.
And in 2022.
And in 2021.
And in 2019.
Looks to me like they havent cleaned up shit.
not sure you can entirely blame them for the 2023 one if they repeated a summary they received:
The 2021 numbers aren’t great, but better than I expected tbh. 2% of complaints upheld indicates they are doing better, relatively speaking. Be interested in knowing the total numbers for 2022 since they’re quoted as saying they had no such judgements for the year at the time of the quote. I find it interesting that the example provided for 2022 apparently didn’t contain the offending material in the original copy, so it started out fine and apparently someone inserted bullshit in the online version. That could have been some unilateral dumbass acting without approval, idk obviously.
Again, I probably wouldn’t go to them for most of those stories anyway, but for a story about white people in NY spraying down black people having a party next door, where it doesn’t seem to be making excuses for those white people? Sure, I’ll read that as reasonably neutral, and then cross reference.
edit: in case it isn’t obvious, the word neutral above was used in regards to this specific article, and how it comes across. If I read an article like this on Fox News, it would have many indicators of victim blaming etc. I don’t get that impression from this article specifically.
Okay, ignoring their outright bad journalism for a second…
Neutral?! Seriously?! No one who’s ever lived in the UK and knows their arse from their elbow would ever consider the Mail neutral.
The Mail has a looooong record of putting forward right wing opinions. Decades long. I compared it to Fox News for a reason.
Thing is, they accomplished precisely what they were really after. Now all the comments are about the validity of the source, not the fact that someone took a hose to their Black and brown neighbors having a party.
And storming into someone’s house uninvited with a dog in such a way that folks were concerned for their safety. No hate for the dog here, but still.
My favorite part here is that you provided a second source that seems to be more acceptable as a “non-shit source” to the first guy, only for the next guy to question the new source based solely on its name, and doesn’t bother to check anywhere for how many awards they’ve gotten.
Folks like this aren’t actually after “non-shit” or “more reputable” sources. They’re after a reason to summarily dismiss the story being brought up. I dare say no source would be good enough.