It did have a “criticism” section, where it detailed the various bogus, right wing, inflamatory, churned up stories they have published in the past, and links to them.
This mysteriously keeps getting edited out.
Also, it’s gone from being pretty accurate to like a PR sales pitch for the paper.
It was described as being a “right win conservative paper”.
It’s now a “paper looking out for middle england”. “Center right”. And “conservatism with a small c”.
It’s gone from being “anti immigration” to “Anti mass immigration”.
Seriously – I work on a magazine, and we patrol our own wikipedia page all the time to check it’s accurate.
I’m pretty sure The Mail are doing the same, but in their usual facist stance – they are deleting facts to make them look less nazi.
Seriously – I don’t really have enough knowledge to re-create the criticism section, but someone on here needs to work on it a bit
Completely misrepresenting the situation as usual. The Queen overspent, which is why she had to use her reserves. She is now, as other papers report, set to ask for more money so this reserve-dipping doesn’t happen again. She did not make some conscientious decision to pay for herself rather than ask taxpayers.
@Chris… more left-wing hypocrisy. Nothing unusual round these parts. So the DM is Nazi is it? But the Nazis despised democracy. Which is exactly what most of the commentators on this site do where the subject of immigration is concerned, believing that majority opinion should be ignored. So who are the enemies of democracy?
I don’t know what kind of magazine you work on but I suspect that it is some kind of po-faced, lefty, up-its-own-arse publication that despises most ordinary folk. And it’s even more hypocritical for you to condemn the DM for doing what you yourself admit to doing, ie checking your own Wikipedia entry!
daveyp: The Mail is undemocratic itself. Try to add a comment that goes against its line and it will ignore it. Just because an opinion isn’t shared by the majority it doesn’t make it wrong.
Daveyp, just a quick note- ‘majority opinion’ does not automatically mean something is morally good, infact ‘majority opinion’ is often nothing but a straw man wheeled out to try to block what others are saying. Opinions are subjective, and can be altered by many things. Media is very powerful in shaping opinions- that’s why its important to challenge the fact that they often come out with so much rubbish.
As for the historical relevance of ‘majority opinion’, even the quickest of glances shows that just because alot of people may support it (or say they do) doesn’t make it right. To pick one example out of the hat- civil rights in the US in the 50s/60s, you could say this was widely opposed across the US, but does that make it right? If a high percentage of people in the US (or even in individual towns) in the 1960s opposed black people being educated above the very basic level, being able to buy food in a cafe, being able to vote or basically be able to live a decent live, then does that make it right? The idea of abiding by a ‘majority opinion’ would say so.
Universal suffrage wasn’t a popular idea at all in the early twentieth century: it it hadn’t been for the war perhaps women would have had to wait much longer to be enfranchised. If only Fawcett, Pankhurst et al had trusted the menfolk to make decisions in their best interests, I wouldn’t have to leave my needlework to put an X in a box every bloody polling day. Bah.
I’d guess that there are few of even the most hardcore chauvinists who would argue now that women shouldn’t have the vote. Certainly not the DM: they need their female demographic to affect a Tory victory in the next election.
Maybe Nazi was a bit strong, but I wouldn’t class the Mail as being democratic, or even slightly independent.
Historically, it’s always been completely right-wing, and almost acted as a political propoganda machine for whatever Tory government happens to be in power.
Even last year, it was investigated by the Press Complaints Commission for posting completely bogus articles on immigration.
Although I agree, all papers maybe have a political leaning, The Mail is different – it’s, more, “this is how it is. if you are not with us you are idiots”.
it’s viewed as one of the most important political papers in the world. Not because it’s accurate. Because it abacks one party in such a biased, manner – that it is quite prepared to do it’s dirty work for them.
David Cameron isn’t allowed to allude to half of the things the Mail does. But it is printed in truth to do it for him.
The only Newspapers I trust are The Guardian and The Independent.
As although they can maybe considered left wing, if Cameron does something right, they praise him for it.
If Brown does something right, the Mail do their best to keep it out of the news
As for the magazine, it’s an educational title, so has no political leaning – well other than science and the search for truth.
We monitor Wikipedia On the basis that it is sometimes vandalised. That and the fact that we are legally entitled to delete anything that is actually untrue.
Most magazines on wikipedia do this. And by in large, they respect everything on there, as long as it is accurate.
The problem with The Mail wikipedia page is the obvious fact that they are quite obviously censoring it.
1. There is a huge difference between checking your Wikipedia page for accuracy or abuse, and repeatedly removing things you don’t like despite the fact that they are acurate.
2. The majority opinion is worthless if it is based on bogus received wisdom and tabloid spin, rather than hard facts.
Saying that ‘the majority support it so it must be right’ is a load of old garbage. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush contested seven elections between them and won them all – I can’t say that popular opinion was right in those cases.
Also seeing how much money Transformers 2 made last weekend should be enough to tell anyone that something being popular doesn’t always make it good.
The majority believed that black people were merely subhuman slaves. The majority believed that children should work up chimneys or in mills. The majority believed women weren’t capable of understanding how to vote.
It took a minority to stand up and change things. Forgive me if I laugh in the face of anyone who thinks the majority are always right.
@daveyp
“I don’t know what kind of magazine you work on but I suspect that it is some kind of po-faced, lefty, up-its-own-arse publication that despises most ordinary folk.”
So because he doesn’t agree with you he must automatically work at a ‘lefty’ magazine? You’re making wild assumptions based on labelling people?
“And it’s even more hypocritical for you to condemn the DM for doing what you yourself admit to doing, ie checking your own Wikipedia entry!”
He said his magazine checks their wiki page and the DM edits the bad stuff out of their wiki page. He condemned the Mail for editing the bad stuff out.
If his managine removed critisism that would be hypocritical.
Read what was actually said and respond to that, or you just discredit any argument you might have had.
@Chris.
Wiki keeps a full history of edits on the History tab. It’s not the easiest thing to use but you can figure out what was removed by having a look through.
Perhaps not quite today but they sure as hell were Nazi sympathisers back in the day.
It’s just always worth remembering, afterall it’s just holding them to their own ’standards’ they love to damn someone by association, however removed.
They don’t like it up em!
daveyp.
” But the Nazis despised democracy”.
What an odd comment.
Given that the Nazis were happy to knowingly use democracy that’s not much of a guide to anything, is it?
Nevertheless it’s pretty plain that the DM absolutely hates the UK as it actually is today and prefers to project some sort of quaint weird 1950s ‘golden age that never was’ image of the England, er, I mean the UK (on a good day, perhaps).
daveyp.
” Which is exactly what most of the commentators on this site do where the subject of immigration is concerned, believing that majority opinion should be ignored. So who are the enemies of democracy?”
I think you meant to say that the majority on here loath the outright lies, half-truth, distorted misinformation and laughably badly informed old sh*t that the DM spews on the subject.
The real enemies of British values and British democracy are those – like the DM – who would disseminate lies, myths and appeal to thoughtless and base prejudice at every opportunity.
They vomit a daily tide deliberately attempting to corrode our real modern British values of freedom, equal and open opportunity with fair play to all with their illogical and perverted ideas of a host of unnecessary and harmful judgemental attitudes and prejudice conjoined to highly conditional rights and an imposed set of vague responsibilities (which they decide upon, not us).
The Sharia Court paranoia being a perfect case in point.
You’re not doing too well defending them lately are you daveyp?
I have to say Littlejohns article on jacko was spot on today and I dnt hold the guy, (littlejohn that is) in high regard as most of his articles are a load of tosh
@Mail Man…having read your latest rant I have only this to say to you. Take some more medication and lie down in a darkened room for a bit. You might start to feel better!
@Matt Hurst…I respect your compassion and empathy for the least fortunate in society. But I think that you should read the DM more often so as to be more in touch with public opinion, at least on some issues. During the recent elections you said that you campaigned for the Labour Party in Cornwall. And the Labour Party in Cornwall got fewer votes than the Cornish Nationalists! If you and your Labour chums can’t get more votes than a bunch of cider-guzzling, gurning loons like the Cornish Nats than you really do need to ask why. I would suggest that you need to get more in touch with ordinary folk and never mind what the Guardian and the Independent say.
Ah, “ordinary” folk. I suppose they’re akin to the oft mentioned “decent citizens” and “law-abiding taxpayers”. Could someone advise me as to where I can find the benchmarks which would enable me to identify these ordinary and decent types? Thanks to daveyp for providing the first: not reading lefty newspapers, check.
daveyp: If ‘ordinary’ folk think the stuff in the Mail passes off as news then I’m quite happy to be not ordinary. I have standards and the Mail is way beneath them. I’m sorry but the Guardian is the best of a bad bunch. Call me a snob if you like.
I guess you just hope no-one notices that you can’t help but resort to parroting bck others’ comments again.
Not the most interesting, amusing or bright response.
(and your typical avoidance of the subject says it all)
We need a we need a Rorschach section for DaveyP, perheps entitled ‘Butterfly or Polish Plumber?”. I don’t see anything about immigration on this front page, but that’s my lefty medication for you. Been so busy hating my own people to take the druggie filters off.
Re: The Front Page – there’s something about ‘nail-biter’ and those photos that makes me think of ‘o’ faces. It’s practically porn, and judging by that lady’s salute – nazi porn at that.
Has anyone read the Dailly Mail Wikipedia page.
It did have a “criticism” section, where it detailed the various bogus, right wing, inflamatory, churned up stories they have published in the past, and links to them.
This mysteriously keeps getting edited out.
Also, it’s gone from being pretty accurate to like a PR sales pitch for the paper.
It was described as being a “right win conservative paper”.
It’s now a “paper looking out for middle england”. “Center right”. And “conservatism with a small c”.
It’s gone from being “anti immigration” to “Anti mass immigration”.
Seriously – I work on a magazine, and we patrol our own wikipedia page all the time to check it’s accurate.
I’m pretty sure The Mail are doing the same, but in their usual facist stance – they are deleting facts to make them look less nazi.
Seriously – I don’t really have enough knowledge to re-create the criticism section, but someone on here needs to work on it a bit
Is “frugal” really the word for someone who lives in a palace at someone else’s expense and owns shitloads of jewels?
Yeah, I don’t think you can be “frugal” if you’ve got an army of servants on the payroll.
Chris – I’ll look into it and if needs be re-create it and keep a copy on my PC which I’ll keep re-posting.
Actually, I’m pretty sure the term “frugal Queen” counts as an oxymoron.
Completely misrepresenting the situation as usual. The Queen overspent, which is why she had to use her reserves. She is now, as other papers report, set to ask for more money so this reserve-dipping doesn’t happen again. She did not make some conscientious decision to pay for herself rather than ask taxpayers.
Has he won anything yet?
@Chris… more left-wing hypocrisy. Nothing unusual round these parts. So the DM is Nazi is it? But the Nazis despised democracy. Which is exactly what most of the commentators on this site do where the subject of immigration is concerned, believing that majority opinion should be ignored. So who are the enemies of democracy?
I don’t know what kind of magazine you work on but I suspect that it is some kind of po-faced, lefty, up-its-own-arse publication that despises most ordinary folk. And it’s even more hypocritical for you to condemn the DM for doing what you yourself admit to doing, ie checking your own Wikipedia entry!
daveyp: The Mail is undemocratic itself. Try to add a comment that goes against its line and it will ignore it. Just because an opinion isn’t shared by the majority it doesn’t make it wrong.
Daveyp, just a quick note- ‘majority opinion’ does not automatically mean something is morally good, infact ‘majority opinion’ is often nothing but a straw man wheeled out to try to block what others are saying. Opinions are subjective, and can be altered by many things. Media is very powerful in shaping opinions- that’s why its important to challenge the fact that they often come out with so much rubbish.
As for the historical relevance of ‘majority opinion’, even the quickest of glances shows that just because alot of people may support it (or say they do) doesn’t make it right. To pick one example out of the hat- civil rights in the US in the 50s/60s, you could say this was widely opposed across the US, but does that make it right? If a high percentage of people in the US (or even in individual towns) in the 1960s opposed black people being educated above the very basic level, being able to buy food in a cafe, being able to vote or basically be able to live a decent live, then does that make it right? The idea of abiding by a ‘majority opinion’ would say so.
BTW I wouldn’t call the DM Nazis, if Joseph Gobbels heard that he would be spinning in his grave :-p
Universal suffrage wasn’t a popular idea at all in the early twentieth century: it it hadn’t been for the war perhaps women would have had to wait much longer to be enfranchised. If only Fawcett, Pankhurst et al had trusted the menfolk to make decisions in their best interests, I wouldn’t have to leave my needlework to put an X in a box every bloody polling day. Bah.
I’d guess that there are few of even the most hardcore chauvinists who would argue now that women shouldn’t have the vote. Certainly not the DM: they need their female demographic to affect a Tory victory in the next election.
DaveyP
Maybe Nazi was a bit strong, but I wouldn’t class the Mail as being democratic, or even slightly independent.
Historically, it’s always been completely right-wing, and almost acted as a political propoganda machine for whatever Tory government happens to be in power.
Even last year, it was investigated by the Press Complaints Commission for posting completely bogus articles on immigration.
Although I agree, all papers maybe have a political leaning, The Mail is different – it’s, more, “this is how it is. if you are not with us you are idiots”.
it’s viewed as one of the most important political papers in the world. Not because it’s accurate. Because it abacks one party in such a biased, manner – that it is quite prepared to do it’s dirty work for them.
David Cameron isn’t allowed to allude to half of the things the Mail does. But it is printed in truth to do it for him.
The only Newspapers I trust are The Guardian and The Independent.
As although they can maybe considered left wing, if Cameron does something right, they praise him for it.
If Brown does something right, the Mail do their best to keep it out of the news
Davey P
As for the magazine, it’s an educational title, so has no political leaning – well other than science and the search for truth.
We monitor Wikipedia On the basis that it is sometimes vandalised. That and the fact that we are legally entitled to delete anything that is actually untrue.
Most magazines on wikipedia do this. And by in large, they respect everything on there, as long as it is accurate.
The problem with The Mail wikipedia page is the obvious fact that they are quite obviously censoring it.
As in, deleting uncomfortable facts.
DaveyP:
1. There is a huge difference between checking your Wikipedia page for accuracy or abuse, and repeatedly removing things you don’t like despite the fact that they are acurate.
2. The majority opinion is worthless if it is based on bogus received wisdom and tabloid spin, rather than hard facts.
Saying that ‘the majority support it so it must be right’ is a load of old garbage. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and George W Bush contested seven elections between them and won them all – I can’t say that popular opinion was right in those cases.
Also seeing how much money Transformers 2 made last weekend should be enough to tell anyone that something being popular doesn’t always make it good.
The majority believed that black people were merely subhuman slaves. The majority believed that children should work up chimneys or in mills. The majority believed women weren’t capable of understanding how to vote.
It took a minority to stand up and change things. Forgive me if I laugh in the face of anyone who thinks the majority are always right.
While others live on the streets in this so called 21st century nation?
Be honest my darling I can’t give a damn
I don’t not can’t bah
@daveyp
“I don’t know what kind of magazine you work on but I suspect that it is some kind of po-faced, lefty, up-its-own-arse publication that despises most ordinary folk.”
So because he doesn’t agree with you he must automatically work at a ‘lefty’ magazine? You’re making wild assumptions based on labelling people?
“And it’s even more hypocritical for you to condemn the DM for doing what you yourself admit to doing, ie checking your own Wikipedia entry!”
He said his magazine checks their wiki page and the DM edits the bad stuff out of their wiki page. He condemned the Mail for editing the bad stuff out.
If his managine removed critisism that would be hypocritical.
Read what was actually said and respond to that, or you just discredit any argument you might have had.
@Chris.
Wiki keeps a full history of edits on the History tab. It’s not the easiest thing to use but you can figure out what was removed by having a look through.
“Actually, I’m pretty sure the term “frugal Queen” counts as an oxymoron.”
Whereas the term “Daily Main journalist” counts as a ‘poxy moron’.
Oh and Charlie, you mean six elections, as I think we all know who did win the 2000 American election.
daveyp.
“So the DM is Nazi is it?”
Perhaps not quite today but they sure as hell were Nazi sympathisers back in the day.
It’s just always worth remembering, afterall it’s just holding them to their own ’standards’ they love to damn someone by association, however removed.
They don’t like it up em!
daveyp.
” But the Nazis despised democracy”.
What an odd comment.
Given that the Nazis were happy to knowingly use democracy that’s not much of a guide to anything, is it?
Nevertheless it’s pretty plain that the DM absolutely hates the UK as it actually is today and prefers to project some sort of quaint weird 1950s ‘golden age that never was’ image of the England, er, I mean the UK (on a good day, perhaps).
daveyp.
” Which is exactly what most of the commentators on this site do where the subject of immigration is concerned, believing that majority opinion should be ignored. So who are the enemies of democracy?”
I think you meant to say that the majority on here loath the outright lies, half-truth, distorted misinformation and laughably badly informed old sh*t that the DM spews on the subject.
The real enemies of British values and British democracy are those – like the DM – who would disseminate lies, myths and appeal to thoughtless and base prejudice at every opportunity.
They vomit a daily tide deliberately attempting to corrode our real modern British values of freedom, equal and open opportunity with fair play to all with their illogical and perverted ideas of a host of unnecessary and harmful judgemental attitudes and prejudice conjoined to highly conditional rights and an imposed set of vague responsibilities (which they decide upon, not us).
The Sharia Court paranoia being a perfect case in point.
You’re not doing too well defending them lately are you daveyp?
I have to say Littlejohns article on jacko was spot on today and I dnt hold the guy, (littlejohn that is) in high regard as most of his articles are a load of tosh
most, you mean all
I actually agreed with what LJ said about Jackson too. He’s still a c*ck though.
@Mail Man…having read your latest rant I have only this to say to you. Take some more medication and lie down in a darkened room for a bit. You might start to feel better!
@Matt Hurst…I respect your compassion and empathy for the least fortunate in society. But I think that you should read the DM more often so as to be more in touch with public opinion, at least on some issues. During the recent elections you said that you campaigned for the Labour Party in Cornwall. And the Labour Party in Cornwall got fewer votes than the Cornish Nationalists! If you and your Labour chums can’t get more votes than a bunch of cider-guzzling, gurning loons like the Cornish Nats than you really do need to ask why. I would suggest that you need to get more in touch with ordinary folk and never mind what the Guardian and the Independent say.
Ah, “ordinary” folk. I suppose they’re akin to the oft mentioned “decent citizens” and “law-abiding taxpayers”. Could someone advise me as to where I can find the benchmarks which would enable me to identify these ordinary and decent types? Thanks to daveyp for providing the first: not reading lefty newspapers, check.
daveyp: If ‘ordinary’ folk think the stuff in the Mail passes off as news then I’m quite happy to be not ordinary. I have standards and the Mail is way beneath them. I’m sorry but the Guardian is the best of a bad bunch. Call me a snob if you like.
Only the Guardian employs both Charlie Brooker and David Mitchell, dream participants in my ideal fantasy threeway.
daveyp
I guess you just hope no-one notices that you can’t help but resort to parroting bck others’ comments again.
Not the most interesting, amusing or bright response.
(and your typical avoidance of the subject says it all)
We need a we need a Rorschach section for DaveyP, perheps entitled ‘Butterfly or Polish Plumber?”. I don’t see anything about immigration on this front page, but that’s my lefty medication for you. Been so busy hating my own people to take the druggie filters off.
Re: The Front Page – there’s something about ‘nail-biter’ and those photos that makes me think of ‘o’ faces. It’s practically porn, and judging by that lady’s salute – nazi porn at that.