Talk:Daily Mail

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon media.svg

This Media related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

its huge[edit]

i mean really huge. the views section. it just goes on and on and on. obsessively so. its become a rant. a fraction of whats there would do. it does not help what argument is being made. it is overkill and along with the excessive hyperbole stops being a punchy take down of the mail pretty quickly denigrates through attrition into making you think you might have a problem and safely write off the criticism as rabid hyperbole. the mail is awful, rant makes us look rabidly partisan and unhinged.

Much of the content here needs a judicious culling. there is too much detail and interest in what is inconsequential dross. a summary would have sufficed with none of the over the top barbed commentary which is laid on so thick that even if its all fair and accurate makes it look unhinged. inane commentary about its use of grammar to huge leaps and assumptions about what its readers think of thomas the tank engine. theres enough we can lay at the mails door without going overboard on this kind of crass exaggeration we accuse the mail.

and despite such a vast outpouring of counter productive venom that this article is, no mention of stephen lawrence or the murderers headline they ran with. it puts the mail in a positive light but but only if we ignore the sharp relief it puts on its other content and how seemly out of character it was.

i dont remember it always being like this. has someone had trouble sleeping? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

totally agree I noticed when I went to fix one of the recent edits. There’s a lot of “The Mail” starting a lot of the sentences too. LurkingGnome (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
One single IP has added 35K of text to the article since last November. It definitely needs some compression. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I chopped it. I removed a lot of the more vapid ones. The old revision goes on and on and on about objectification when we already have a rather big section on it. I actually find it disturbing the fixation on that part of the Daily Mail. A lot of the content goes way too much into how readers react to a story rather than the reporting (which is already discussed in the article anyway). It also repeats a lot of what the Daily Mail has been established being known for, such as repeated talk about how anti-immigrant Daily Mail is and how creepy about women they are. Some stuff I kept include their complaint about violent video games while they are happy to show violent footage (which is a problem of media in general; tangent: I remember news media showing footage of a man being burnt alive). Animal stories are just filler in the article, I don't see what's so noteworthy about talking about them. We really need some more curation for this sort of stuff. And use this as a lesson: revisions that add thousands of bytes are not always "good" edits, and be especially vigilant if it's added by a BoN. But anyway, are my edits good? It's probably better, but we still have some work to do. Isn't it great that the BoN that added all this didn't bother formatting the sources? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

one more thing[edit]

Please revert any edits made by the BoN. We've repeatedly warned this user to properly format sources, but warnings have been ignored and we haven't followed through with the warnings. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Give credit where credit is due[edit]

Since so many negatives have been covered, should also mention the Valentine's Day front-page "MURDERERS" headline. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

THis is hillarious[edit]

Daily Mail complains about a ridiculous conspiracy theory about Princess Diana: completely self-unaware. — Unsigned, by: / talk

Broken Clock[edit]

Following the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, the 5 suspects weren't convicted despite a shit ton of evidence against them most likely due to institutionalised racism. The Valentine's day 1997 issue of the Mail had the word "MURDERERS" at the top of the front page with the names and pictures of the 5 suspects below it with the words "The mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us." None of them sued, putting even more pressure on the met and possibly resulting in the convictions of two of them in 2012. A usually racist rag risking being taken to the cleaners to get justice for the family of a young black man who was killed in a racist attack is a broken clock moment if ever there was one. Evilatheistheathen (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well it's not much of a high bar but if it takes for the friggin' Mail to bring something to justice, our society's more messed up than I thought. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
One story has it that the Heil only gave a shit about Stephen Lawrence was because his father had done some plastering work for Paul “Vagina Monologue” Dacre and made a good job of it. Mr Larrington (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Dead link[edit] If anyone could find a working mirror of this video, we could add it back under the "videos" section of external links. It was recommended on a number of sites including The Conversation and BoingBoing. The latter of which says the video was "Martin Robbins doing a 20-minute presentation at The Pod Delusion's third birthday bash, explaining in excruciating (and funny) detail why the Mail is an atrocious, vile fester of stinking shit, and why the people who publish it are scum." Seems worth hunting down, but I couldn't find it. It's not a podcast episode, rather a lecture, I think. Chillpilled (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)