The Mail Online is the best source of news period.

Nodin · 26-01-2011 11:49pm

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 · 26-01-2011 11:50pm

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 · 27-01-2011 12:57am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:00am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:04am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:06am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:10am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:13am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:17am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:18am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:19am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:20am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:23am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:23am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:24am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:24am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:25am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:25am

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 · 27-01-2011 1:26am

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

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 1:29am

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?

walshb · 27-01-2011 1:30am

Millicent wrote: »

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.

Not wanting to get into a argument, but if a relative of mine died under strange circumstances in a foreign country, then I would get a second autopsy from MY country, just to eliminate the chance that the foreign country didn't cut corners. That is just me. I don't think that is a lot to ask for. Gately was burned, money divvied out, and nothing! The Spanish may well have good med practices, but a foreigner in their country dies, then what's it to them? We know well of many countries botching and covering up autopsies on foreigners who died on their land. Happens all the time.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 27-01-2011 1:33am

walshb wrote: »

We know well of many countries botching and covering up autopsies on foreigners who died on their land. Happens all the time.

Errr I'd ask you to provide a citation but you'd probably link to the Daily Mail.

AnonoBoy · 27-01-2011 1:33am

walshb wrote: »

Not wanting to get into a argument, but if a relative of mine died under strange circumstances in a foreign country, then I would get a second autopsy from MY country, just to eliminate the chance that the foreign country didn't cut corners. That is just me. I don't think that is a lot to ask for. Gately was burned, money divvied out, and nothing! The Spanish may well have good med practices, but a foreigner in their country dies, then what's it to them? We know well of many countries botching and covering up autopsies on foreigners who died on their land. Happens all the time.

And what about the undertones of homophobia in the piece?

walshb · 27-01-2011 1:35am

Sean_K wrote: »

Errr I'd ask you to provide a citation but you'd probably link to the Daily Mail.

You saying it does not happen?

Anyway, simple, a second autopsy I would have demanded. For piece of mind...

I wonder will that Bulgarian ever surface to tell his side?

Millicent · 27-01-2011 1:36am

walshb wrote: »

Not wanting to get into a argument, but if a relative of mine died under strange circumstances in a foreign country, then I would get a second autopsy from MY country, just to eliminate the chance that the foreign country didn't cut corners. That is just me. I don't think that is a lot to ask for. Gately was burned, money divvied out, and nothing! The Spanish may well have good med practices, but a foreigner in their country dies, then what's it to them? We know well of many countries botching and covering up autopsies on foreigners who died on their land. Happens all the time.

Because medical malpractice laws and standards forbid this attitude and because, as a high profile case, they're not exactly likely to just slice and dice. As I said before, pulmonary oedema is not difficult to diagnose in an autopsy and neither is a pre-existing heart condition.

I've not heard of any botched autopsies in foreign lands but perhaps you can give me some examples? I'm not sure why any family would prolong their suffering with a second autopsy and give a metaphorical two fingers to the Spanish medical establishment either.

walshb · 27-01-2011 1:36am

AnonoBoy wrote: »

And what about the undertones of homophobia in the piece?

What is the big deal with querying or commenting on the general lifestyle of gay men? They do have a lifestyle, do they not? What is homophobic about querying their lifestyles, providing examples?

SuperInfinity · 27-01-2011 1:36am

AnonoBoy wrote: »

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!

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

Are you mad?

Some of these articles are showing the good the vaccine is doing, others are showing the bad points of it. Some of them are even case studies, do you expect to have an equal and opposite group of people in every article?

Often it's different authors are giving different points of view on the subject, there's nothing wrong with that.

None of the articles are "telling" people what to do. A person who takes one article in a newspaper (where the author is making the argument or just leaning in favour or against a vaccine which is NOT supposed to be the entire newspaper's "stance" on something), and bases important health decisions on it, isn't a person capable of living independently.

Even the bad articles say there are good arguments for the vaccine, even the good articles show there's concern over it. What more do you want?

Scare stories? They're reporting on actual deaths, these were real people who died from it. Just because it sounds scary to you, don't assume that all the Daily Mail readers are being scared by it as well. Don't assume anything about Daily Mail readers, especially something that is derogatory to them. It's a circular argument you're using.

Thomas_S_Hunterson · 27-01-2011 1:37am

walshb wrote: »

You saying it does not happen?

Absolutely not.

Are you saying it "happens all the time"?

If so, cite.

twinQuins · 27-01-2011 1:37am

walshb wrote: »

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.

Like the Weekly World News. Oh wait...

walshb · 27-01-2011 1:39am

Millicent wrote: »

Because medical malpractice laws and standards forbid this attitude and because, as a high profile case, they're not exactly likely to just slice and dice. As I said before, pulmonary oedema is not difficult to diagnose in an autopsy and neither is a pre-existing heart condition.

I've not heard of any botched autopsies in foreign lands but perhaps you can give me some examples? I'm not sure why any family would prolong their suffering with a second autopsy and give a metaphorical two fingers to the Spanish medical establishment either.

Now you are talking. But, see, the Gately family never wanted the second autopsy, so who the hell can query or check the Spanish autopsy?

We will never ever know if the autoposy was correct, as no second one corroborated the Spanish one.

It's not all that uncommon for a family to seek a second autopsy. Why would you think that they would be giving two fingers to the Spanish?

The Mail Online is the best source of news period.

Comments