Please don't quote the Daily Mail or Daily Express

When you're trying to argue your points here, don't make the mistake of quoting one of these two pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers.

DO not use them as a source when discussing Middle East conflict, they are liars, plain and simple.

They make up anything for a story.

Look at these:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military

Downright lying about the situation. The Express glorifies Putin for stuff he ISN'T DOING in Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447581/ISIS-executioner-beheaded-SAS-sniper-s-special-bullet-demonstrated-decapitate-prisoners.html

The Daily Mail makes up fine details for a story.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 1

RF_PineMarten

18

I also find that they tend to mix up the Russian air strikes against ISIS and those against other groups.

I've seen Express articles talking about ISIS supposedly being bombed in Latakia and Idlib provinces - provinces where ISIS does not control any territory, so clearly those strikes were against other groups. RT is guilty of this as well sometimes.

Reply 2

Aj12

18

Original post by Frank Underwood

When you're trying to argue your points here, don't make the mistake of quoting one of these two pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers.

DO not use them as a source when discussing Middle East conflict, they are liars, plain and simple.

They make up anything for a story.

Look at these:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military

Downright lying about the situation. The Express glorifies Putin for stuff he ISN'T DOING in Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447581/ISIS-executioner-beheaded-SAS-sniper-s-special-bullet-demonstrated-decapitate-prisoners.html

The Daily Mail makes up fine details for a story.

Instead, quote something reliable which isn't excessively biased. The BBC, Sky News, RT, Guardian, Independent, or other sources are better, not because of their stance, but because they actually report facts, and not half fantasy half opinion stories like those above.

RT is worse than the daily mail or the express. It is only good for seeing how the Kremlin wants a story spun. They don't report facts, they report conspiracies.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 3

DiddyDec01

3

All news outlets make up or assume things when they are missing details.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

Frank Underwood

OP

5

Original post by DiddyDec

All news outlets make up or assume things when they are missing details.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Clearly the extent to which they make things up is bigger with these two

Reply 5

ikhan94

16

Daily mail is just plain bs

Reply 6

DiddyDec01

3

Original post by Frank Underwood

Clearly the extent to which they make things up is bigger with these two

I disagree, the others just make it sound more believable.

I have actually had first hand experience of the national media making things up or assuming parts of a story because they lack details. They all do it but some better than others.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 7

username1148663

21

Original post by Frank Underwood

When you're trying to argue your points here, don't make the mistake of quoting one of these two pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers.

DO not use them as a source when discussing Middle East conflict, they are liars, plain and simple.

They make up anything for a story.

Look at these:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military

Downright lying about the situation. The Express glorifies Putin for stuff he ISN'T DOING in Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447581/ISIS-executioner-beheaded-SAS-sniper-s-special-bullet-demonstrated-decapitate-prisoners.html

The Daily Mail makes up fine details for a story.

Instead, quote something reliable which isn't excessively biased. The BBC, Sky News, RT, Guardian, Independent, or other sources are better, not because of their stance, but because they actually report facts, and not half fantasy half opinion stories like those above.

Ok don't use the guardian or independent

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

Frank Underwood

OP

5

Original post by paul514

Ok don't use the guardian or independent

Posted from TSR Mobile

Why?

Reply 9

earthworm

17

Original post by Frank Underwood

Why?

Because they are left bias.. So just the times, metro and beeb then?

Reply 10

ChaoticButterfly

20

Original post by Frank Underwood

Clearly the extent to which they make things up is bigger with these two

It's worse when the the so called broadsheets do it as they are considered "respectable".

Reply 11

Frank Underwood

OP

5

Original post by earthworm

Because they are left bias.. So just the times, metro and beeb then?

All newspapers are biased.

But they don't make up fictional stories like the Daily Mail and Daily Express do. I'm fine with right-wing bias, but when they forge stories for sales and when they show actual footage from terrorist propaganda, it is reckless.

Reply 12

_Bright Eyes

14

I think it's fine to use any source to back up a point (so long as there's some factual basis in it). Every source will have it's biases. The biases just need to be acknowledged, that's the main part.

Reply 13

AlwaysWatching

11

Original post by Frank Underwood

When you're trying to argue your points here, don't make the mistake of quoting one of these two pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers.

DO not use them as a source when discussing Middle East conflict, they are liars, plain and simple.

They make up anything for a story.

Look at these:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609757/Putin-ISIS-Islamic-State-Syria-Raqqa-troops-soldiers-air-strike-jets-military

Downright lying about the situation. The Express glorifies Putin for stuff he ISN'T DOING in Syria.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3447581/ISIS-executioner-beheaded-SAS-sniper-s-special-bullet-demonstrated-decapitate-prisoners.html

The Daily Mail makes up fine details for a story.

Instead, quote something reliable which isn't excessively biased. The BBC, Sky News, RT, Guardian, Independent, or other sources are better, not because of their stance, but because they actually report facts, and not half fantasy half opinion stories like those above.

Complains about "bias", yet counts RT as credible (Russian state owned news organisation who's editor in chief is Putin), sky news (owned by Murdoch) and the Guardian (its comment id free section is the left wing version of the Daily Mail)

So much fail.

Besides, the mail and express don't simply make things up. They have a political stance/ opinion on a particular event that has occurred, they don't simply magic it up out of nowhere.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 14

Frank Underwood

OP

5

Original post by AlwaysWatching

Complains about "bias", yet counts RT as credible (Russian state owned news organisation), sky news (owned by Murdoch) and the Guardian (its comment id free section is the left wing version of the Daily Mail)

So much fail.

Does that make the Daily Mail and the Daily Express any more valid? No.

I listed reuters / rt because it has good coverage with its videos, I did not say it was 'credible' I just said that it was more credible than those two. Mainly because they still report facts and don't forge stories or attack individuals like those do.

Reply 15

AlwaysWatching

11

Original post by Frank Underwood

Does that make the Daily Mail and the Daily Express any more valid? No.

I listed RT because it has good coverage with its videos, I did not say it was 'credible' I just said that it was more credible than those two. Mainly because they still report facts and don't forge stories or attack individuals like those do.

RT is worse than the mail and express. I don't even like the mail and express, but I can't believe I have to state the pretty obvious.

And you included sky news too... :facepalm:

The Mail and express are bad newspapers I agree, but you are wrong to imply that they simply make stuff up. Yes they spin things, or have an opinion on something which you might not agree with, but they don't simply "invent" stories. The event they report still happened, regardless of their opinions. Besides, why is your opinion anymore valid than theirs?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

P357

12

Original post by Frank Underwood

When you're trying to argue your points here, don't make the mistake of quoting one of these two pro-tory / UKIP, pro Putin predatory newspapers.

DO not use them as a source when discussing Middle East conflict, they are liars, plain and simple.

They make up anything for a story.

Instead, quote something reliable which isn't excessively biased. The BBC, Sky News, RT, Guardian, Independent, or other sources are better, not because of their stance, but because they actually report facts, and not half fantasy half opinion stories like those above.

Reply 17

Frank Underwood

OP

5

Original post by AlwaysWatching

RT is worse than the mail and express. I don't even like the mail and express, but I can't believe I have to state the pretty obvious.

And you included sky news too... :facepalm:

The Mail and express are bad newspapers I agree, but you are wrong to imply that they simply make stuff up. Yes they spin things, or have an opinion on something which you might not agree with, but they don't simply "invent" stories.