I always see people criticizing this source and calling them unreliable, but I've never read an article on it where the content didn't match what was reported by a "reputable" source.
Can someone give some specific examples of when The Daily Mail was wrong or reported false news?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html
>>41643
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-179264/Cannabis-kills-30-000-year.html
they're just the worst
>>41643
Some of the stories on there are socially conservative, that by definition makes them untrustworthy liars.
>>41643
https://web.archive.org/web/20150502161341/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225663/Superstom-Sandy-looters-brag-Twitter-Even-momma-got-outta-house-loot-new-shirt.html
Fake Hurricane Sandy looting
>>41643
Piers Morgan is Editor of their Online division.
Enough said.
>>41644
While the Mail is bad, there are much worse out there like anything from Gawker media or the Guardian.
It's best just to stick with Reuters.
>>41784
Gawker doesn't have a print edition and The Guardian isn't anywhere near as bad, just liberal.
>>41788
The Guardian has articles about mothers who don't want their daughter to grow up because her poos will start smelling different and that you are racist if you aren't fucking a black woman.
The Guardian is very much clickbait shit at this point.
>>41810
Based on which section brah.
>>41643
They run articles on the evils of the internet exposing kids to porn and then comment on how hot some teenage celebrity looks in her bikini at the beach,
So not very reliable,
It's not that bad liberals hate it because they use 'triggering' language and they actually report things that are happening instead of whining about white privilege all the time like the guardian
>>41847
Go away piers
>>41847
They don't report at all. They make shit up. They've been sued and fined repeatedly for it. That's what makes them even worse than the Guardian, who has never been fined or sued like that.
And they are far from conservative, They only write/post conservative themed stories more often because conservative people are more easily outraged enough to click their links and generate them money without checking on whether something is true or not. That's why they hired a notorious smear merchant like Piers Morgan to be the editor in chief of their internet division.
>>41857
No examples? Okay then.
News of the world made shit up and so does your precious guardian.
>>41864
Do you live in a vacuum? How have you not heard how George Clooney was just the latest example?
