That may be your opinion, but it doesn’t really matter. The Daily Mail is still one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world.
It has reach, audience power, and a format a lot of news sites study because it works. It’s one of the most popular news websites in the world. Ranked #4 in News & Media Publishers.
#4 in the world. So all those people reading and visiting the site are right wing boomers?!
Yet it’s still one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world. So apparently those “media bias rating agency” opinions aren’t quite as influential as the actual reading habits of millions of people. Oh well! :)
Is there something inaccurate in the article I posted a link to?
In the 2017 RfC, the Daily Mail was the first source to be deprecated on Wikipedia, and the decision was challenged and reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other sources exist that are more reliable. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. The Daily Mail has a “reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication”…
I find information hygiene to be one of the worst issues plaguing Reddit. I feel like generally following Wikipedia’s standards, loosely, should be the bare minimum for Lemmy news communities.
Ironic to use Wikipedia as the final authority here, since for years people dismissed Wikipedia itself as an unreliable source. I know, cuz I was around when it first came out and the hate for it was pretty universal. I remember people saying that Wikipedia was stupid and useless and it couldn’t be trusted. Plenty of teachers and researchers still warn against treating Wikipedia as the last word.
Also, you referred to a sourcing policy, which is not a measure of readership, cultural reach, or media influence. Daily Mail is one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world.
Wikipedia can decide it doesn’t want Daily Mail citations, and that may be reasonable for an encyclopedia. Cool!
But that doesn’t erase the fact that millions of people read it, share it, and react to it. Like me! It’s popular and well liked. :)
Is there something inaccurate in the article I posted a link to?
Yes. They cherry picked a quote and sensationalized it in a headline.
It’s (as far as I can tell) technically not a lie, but it is bad journalism.
Equating popularity with information quality is why Twitter, Facebook, LLM frontends and such are spreading so much misinformation and disinformation. It’s (IMO) a huge component of what’s wrong with the world.
If you don’t see anything wrong with that, if you feel like basic sourcing standards like that are not relevant, and popularity is correlated with credibility, then we just aren’t going to be in agreement. We’re not even thinking in the same universe.
And if that’s the case… why are you even on Lemmy? Why not somewhere with more visibility? What do you hope to gain here vs Twitter or Reddit?
Daily Mail is one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world, which makes it influential.
And if that’s the case… why are you even on Lemmy? Why not somewhere with more visibility?
Because I want to be. I’m just as free to be here as you are. I’m just as free to post what I want, as you are. I’m just as free to mod my community, just as you are.
Diversity is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree? You aren’t against diversity are you? Because diversity of opinion counts as diversity as well.
Also, if Lemmy has such limited “visibility,” then no reason for you to be upset, right? No one is here, so why are you mad about links to a news org you don’t like, since this place has such low “visibility”?
Love me some Daily Mail! It’s one of the most popular news websites in the world. (Ranked #4 in News & Media Publishers.)
It’s awesome! Is there something inaccurate in the article?
It’s sensationalist right wing garbage for boomers.
That may be your opinion, but it doesn’t really matter. The Daily Mail is still one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world.
It has reach, audience power, and a format a lot of news sites study because it works. It’s one of the most popular news websites in the world. Ranked #4 in News & Media Publishers.
#4 in the world. So all those people reading and visiting the site are right wing boomers?!
Fox News is #1 in cable news. Overwhelmingly watched by right wing boomers and people with traumatic brain injuries.
Well it sure does seem your opinion is in the minority then. Hmmmm…
You are totally free to start you own news community and refrain from posting fox news and daily mail articles though. You gonna do that?
Nah, I’ll just block this one.
Oh ok, so you want to complain, but you don’t want to actually do anything to create a change. Ok, cool. Byeeeee! :)
And the opinion of almost every single media bias rating agency.
Yet it’s still one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world. So apparently those “media bias rating agency” opinions aren’t quite as influential as the actual reading habits of millions of people. Oh well! :)
Is there something inaccurate in the article I posted a link to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
I find information hygiene to be one of the worst issues plaguing Reddit. I feel like generally following Wikipedia’s standards, loosely, should be the bare minimum for Lemmy news communities.
Ironic to use Wikipedia as the final authority here, since for years people dismissed Wikipedia itself as an unreliable source. I know, cuz I was around when it first came out and the hate for it was pretty universal. I remember people saying that Wikipedia was stupid and useless and it couldn’t be trusted. Plenty of teachers and researchers still warn against treating Wikipedia as the last word.
Also, you referred to a sourcing policy, which is not a measure of readership, cultural reach, or media influence. Daily Mail is one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world.
Wikipedia can decide it doesn’t want Daily Mail citations, and that may be reasonable for an encyclopedia. Cool!
But that doesn’t erase the fact that millions of people read it, share it, and react to it. Like me! It’s popular and well liked. :)
Is there something inaccurate in the article I posted a link to?
Yes. They cherry picked a quote and sensationalized it in a headline.
It’s (as far as I can tell) technically not a lie, but it is bad journalism.
Equating popularity with information quality is why Twitter, Facebook, LLM frontends and such are spreading so much misinformation and disinformation. It’s (IMO) a huge component of what’s wrong with the world.
If you don’t see anything wrong with that, if you feel like basic sourcing standards like that are not relevant, and popularity is correlated with credibility, then we just aren’t going to be in agreement. We’re not even thinking in the same universe.
And if that’s the case… why are you even on Lemmy? Why not somewhere with more visibility? What do you hope to gain here vs Twitter or Reddit?
Daily Mail is one of the most-read English-language news sites in the world, which makes it influential.
Because I want to be. I’m just as free to be here as you are. I’m just as free to post what I want, as you are. I’m just as free to mod my community, just as you are.
Diversity is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree? You aren’t against diversity are you? Because diversity of opinion counts as diversity as well.
Also, if Lemmy has such limited “visibility,” then no reason for you to be upset, right? No one is here, so why are you mad about links to a news org you don’t like, since this place has such low “visibility”?