Is the Daily Mail OK as a source for DU?

[Dead_Parrot]

This turned up in ATA recently, so I thought I'd throw the question out here. We have lists of sources we don't allow, or that we only allow in certain circumstances: Which box do you think it belongs in?
Personally, I think that while the Hate Mail does have some decent news coverage on non-politcal issues, I can't think of anything that hasn't been covered by a more reliable source, so we could probably 'blacklist' it without missing out.
Feel free to chip in with comments on other sources like the Torygraph, BTW. :)

[LeftishBrit]

1. I was the one who posted the question on ATA, so my view is basically no.

Of course, like any source, articles from the Hate-Mail could be posted as examples of how some people in this country are thinking, and how opinions might be changing. But it's not a reliable source:

It is VERY RW. Anti-immigrant. Anti-minority groups generally. Against gays, single parents, feminists and anyone who doesn't conform to a mythical 1950s morality.

It includes several writers who correspond essentially a British version of the Christian Right: anti-atheist, anti-secular, anti-Muslim. This often spills over into an anti-science agenda: e.g. global warming denial; pro-Intelligent Design; etc.

It is against New Labour, and sometimes even against Cameron, because the latter are seem as *not right-wing enough*. This is sometimes mistaken on DU for criticism from the Left.

Even its non-political news is often influenced by its anti-science, anti-secular, anti-'modern' agenda. And even when it isn't, it's influenced by a desire to create a sensation!

It is indeed extremely sensationalist. This is especially noticeable with regard to its coverage of medical issues in particular: as someone put it, they seem to divide the world into objects that cause cancer and objects that cure it. But it is applicable to just about everything that it covers.

It is also extremely nasty: full of vile hate-filled smears against the individuals and groups that the writers dislike. Its original owner Lord Northcliffe, nearly 100 years ago, claimed that an aim of the paper was to provide a 'daily hate' (preceding Orwell's fictional Two Minutes Hate by quite a while!) Hence it is sometimes called the 'Daily Hate'.

It was often antisemitic and sympathetic to the Nazis during the run-up to WW2; and though obviously the staff have changed in 75 years(!), the tendency to support vicious right-wingers has not.

As regards other papers: the same comments apply by-and-large to the Daily Express and to the Murdoch-owned Sun. The Torygraph is in a slightly different category. The comment sections and blogs are breathtakingly horrible, and since the last change of editorship, and especially since going online, seem to have moved from old-fashioned Toryism to something more akin to the Republicans/ Christian Right, though still spewed from the mouths of Brits. But the news items are a *bit* more respectable than those of the tabloids. Until 2 or 3 years ago, the Torygraph was in fact reasonably reliable in its news reporting, but its reporting is now also much more influenced by its RW bias. So I wouldn't consider it as a totally inadmissible news source, unlike the tabloids; but it still needs to be taken with lots of caution.
.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. It should be regarded the same way as Fox News

that is, as a known biased source, but which may, sometimes, be the only detailed report available. It annoys me to see DUers use it when it's clear the story was not 'broken' by the Mail, especially when reading the story makes it clear that another paper or broadcaster actually did report it first, and the Mail has just reworded it. I'm not sure I'd go as far as a blanket ban on it for LBN stories, though (just as I don't think I would for Fox News). You could, I suppose, change the note at the top of LBN which currently says:

"Do not link to blogs, vanity sites, or blatantly biased sources, except in cases where reputable mainstream sources are not available"

to explicitly list Fox News, the Mail, and any other similar sources as an example of 'blatant bias'.

The Torygraph isn't so bad; it can be biased, but makes more of an effort to report facts than the Mail does.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Well, there's the question...

...Given that DU has an understandably US-centric basis, I personally can't think of anything that would be news-worthy enough to qualify for LBN - or even GD - where the only source would be a UK paper...

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. There was the David Kelly story from a couple of days ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4657575

It got +90 recs (anything Kelly-related is very popular on DU), and they were the only media outlet to get a copy of the 'memorial', it seems:

http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=memorial+%22david+kelly%22&cf=all&scoring=n

It wouldn't be a great loss to DU if no thread was started with a Mail link again, it's true. That would be the easy way to get rid of the misleading Mail stories - just stop all of them. But, as I said, I think Fox News would fall into the same category.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. True, but...

a few hours later it was all over the net. DU would not cease to function because we waited for the Scoop, NYT, Grauniad or Pravda versions...

[fedsron2us]

3. Source for what ?

The Mail is a bit more complicated than a simple right wing hate sheet. Its content really divides into four parts

a) Basic World News coverage taken from the agencies like AP and Reuteurs
b) More in depth reporting usually on UK domestic issues.
c) Editorials and comment pieces from columnists
d) Non political features and articles

Item a) is largely bog standard news coverage where the Mail essentially prints the identical pieces from the wires as every other paper including the Guardian. These syndicated news stories are easily visible in Google and I dont see that the Mails version of them is any more or less reliable as a source than any other papers.

Item b) is the area where the Mails coverage is most suspect as these supposed news articles are often slanted in such a way as to support a particular editorial line being taken by the paper on a subject such as immigration. The reportage claims to be 'news' but in fact is something rather more insidious than simple collecting and listing of facts to form a story

Item c) attracts a lot of attention from the left who often rail at the loony tune ramblings of some of the Mails regular columnists. However, these items do not purport to be news coverage so are not really sources for anything apart from the authors opinions. It should be noted that the papers various right wing columnists do not follow the same line on all issues and quite often disagree with each other and the papers editorial line. For example the papers long established columnist Andrew Alexander is definitely right wing but is also a consistent opponent of the wars in Iraq and Aghanistan as well as being a proponent for British nuclear disarmament.

Item d) covers all the other iotem such as sports, fashion, celebrity gossip, film, theatre, book reviews, sport. horoscopes, health, finance etc which make up a good portion of the Mail like any other paper. The Mail is a popular paper with female readers and the importance of these non political items is often underestimated in its success

My own view is that it is only the second item on the list where one has to be really careful about the Mail since this is where it is selling propaganda as news. It gets a pass on all the other items even where it gives house room to columnists whose views I loathe. So long as Mail opinion pieces are clearly identifiable and separate from news coverage I dont see why they should not be discussed and pulled apart on DU. Personally I think it is one thing to disagree with the Daily Mails politics. It is quite something else to think that it should be put on some sort of proscribed list of banned publications in the hope that by ignoring its unpleasant opinions they will somehow go away. Anyway you cant really have a discussion about the future of UK politics without taking the Mail into account as it is going to be a major player in the game. This is going to be particularly important over the next two years as the Coalition government becomes increasingly unpopular since unlike the Daily Telegraph the Daily Mail is not an organ of the press upon which Cameron can necessarily rely for support when the going gets rough.

[LeftishBrit]

6. I agree that pulling apart the Mail articles and using them as an indicator of political opinion is

fine.

What bothers me is when Daily Mail articles are quoted uncritically as evidence that, for example, the UK is a near-fascist nanny-state; that we are being overrun by immigrants; that the NHS is a failure; or that the MMR causes autism. Or as evidence for anything.

I don't think mention of it should be *banned*; just that people should know that it's not valid evidence.

Incidentally, I would disagree that the Torygraph are automatic support for Cameron. They certainly aren't going to support anything to his left; but some of their writers certainly regard him as a 'wet', especially on social issues.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. That's the tricky bit

Working out if any one Mail article is on the level or not requires the mods to do all sorts of divination which takes a lot of time and frankly, we can't afford the goats.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. If it isn't, then why would Australia's Daily Telegraph be okay?

I can think of a reasonably long list of non-American sources that are as bad, if not worse than the UK's Daily Mail. I've argued for a long time several of those sources shouldn't be allowed to be used at DU (one would be Israel's extreme RW and anti-Arab/Muslim Arutz Sheva) but they're still allowed...

Why should this be applied to only British sources?

[LeftishBrit]

8. It isn't only British sources. It's that most Americans know how bad some of their own sources are..

but may still quote the Mail or sometimes Express uncritically; and as Brits we can warn them.

Australians should probably also warn DU about your own bad sources.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. There's a difference between warning DUers and an outright ban on a source...

I'd be opposed to banning the Daily Mail as a source unless other sources that are just as bad, if not worse, are also included specifically in the ban. And those would include the Daily Telegraph and Arutz Sheva, which both go beyond RW nuttery and into the area of inciting hatred and intolerance towards certain minority groups. And based on what I've seen of FauxNews over the past week or so where frothing at the mouth American 'political analysts' call openly for the death of Julian Assange, I'm suspecting that source also crosses the line into inciting hatred and intolerance, so if those other sources are banned, then FauxNews should be as well....

I think it's a matter of educating American DUers when they do post links to non-American sources that are stinky. Sometimes people post links to those sorts of sources for other reasons and aren't agreeing with the source at all. For example, a long while ago I posted a few articles from Arutz Sheva to make a point about what sources were allowed to be posted. Yet I hate everything about Arutz Sheva and its hatred. Yesterday I also was going to post a link to a YouTube thingy from that O'Leilly show on FauxNews where someone from GetUp! got yelled over by some maniac conservative who wanted to kill Julian Assange. If sources like the Daily Mail and FauxNews were banned, I wouldn't be allowed to do that, even though I'm laughing at the source and am well aware that it's ugly and mindless. If someone sees an article posted and the person who posted it is appearing to be a bit too cheer-squaddy about the source or the article itself is engaging in hatred or bigotry, hopefully alerting on it would lead to it being locked. I know when I saw someone post a link to a Daily Telegraph piece of nonsense about Muslim rape gangs, the mods locked it...

[LeftishBrit]

14. I wasn't suggesting an absolute ban on any of these

More that such sources should be regarded as in the category of Limbaugh's talk-show, etc.: i.e. worth quoting as examples of RW opinion but not as valid sources of info at any rate on a liberal board.

I believe in 'knowing your enemies', but also in being aware that they *are* your enemies.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. It may not be

I know bugger all about the Aussie DT - and as an NZ-based mod, I'm probably the closest thing we have to a voice of authority on it's suitability (scared, yet?).

The admins and mods can only work with the information available - and with 6,580 newspapers in print (according to St. Wiki of Pedia) there's going to be a lot of unknowns, especially outside the US.

Hence the question. ;)

As mentioned, the mods have a list of the good, the bad and the ugly: I'll flag up the AU DT and Arutz Sheva as worth adding.

[T_i_B]

13. I would not reccomend any national UK tabloid as an OK source

They all have very strong agenda's and they are all inclined to put their political agenda before the facts.

It's not just the Daily Fail and the Diana Express. I'd say the same thing about The Mirror. The Mirror may have a different agenda to the rabidly RW one touted by the rest of the tabloids but it still has an agenda to push.

[LeftishBrit]

15. I agree - at least the Mirror shouldn't be cited without a lot of cautions attached

Oddly enough, I think I've simply seen far fewer citations of the Mirror than the Hate-Mail on DU; but that may be just an impression. I agree that neither is a good info source.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Probably because DUers are picking up references on blogs or other forums

I doubt many DUers look regularly at the Mirror or Mail home pages; but they will read other American blogs and forums, and these will contain people who pass on British stories, and will be more likely to include people who agree with the Mail than with the Mirror.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Very good point.

[T_i_B]

18. There was quite a bit from the Mirror in 2003/2004 on here.

Mainly because the Mirror was staunchly against the Iraq war and that appealed to DU'er's.

However, without George W Bush to bash I can't see the Mirror being of as much interest to US DUer's.

[Lithos]

19. Interesting...

A couple of questions if anyone knows.

Who controls/directs the editorial policy? Who is their target audience?

Part of why I am asking is that Fox News is deliberately losing money in an attempt to provide a 24/7 outlet for promoting and legitimizing the extreme RW views of Murdoch. Does the Daily Mail serve in this capacity. It sounds like it did 100 years ago, but is it true today?

L-

[T_i_B]

20. Daily Fail does try and make money

It's owned by Associated Newspapers, who sold their London Evening Standard to a Russian businessman in 2009 and to be honest, if all they were interested in was propaganda over money they would have kept hold of the Standard IMHO.

I suspect that Viscount Rothermere doesn't need to prod the editor of the Daily Fail too much in order for him to spew out nasty bitchy and extremely right wing rubbish.

Besides, sensationalism sells. If only the truth sold newspapers in the same quanity. :eyes:

[truebrit71]

21. It is an excellent source..for celeb gossip, famous people semi-nude, and the occasional nipple-slip

..other than that the only other practical use is to wrap up portions of cod n chips...or to place your muddy wellies on..