http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286/+morninggloria

Here’s an interesting piece explaining the way the site is run.

Plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise. Let no-one else’s work evadeyaeyes.

Man, everything about this publication sucks. I can’t be the only one that judges people that read that crap?!

No, I judge people who read Gawker, too. 🙂

Ripping off stories is the least of their problems.

Hey!

I have to read jakopnik every day for my degree research!

And I like it. And jezebel too.

My father, playing devil’s advocate as I kvetched for months about the Mail’s dishonest practices, often would ask the question, “What is the Mail trying to be? A credible news outlet, or something that’s just for entertainment?”

UK-style newsrooms must be a complete culture shock for anyone with US print media background. Most US newspapers are all about rigorous attribution and fact checking – many will employ someone to go over stories with a toothcomb and make sure they are accurate before printing them (basically doing the reporter’s job twice rather than just subbing it for style and spotting obvious errors).

To be hurled into the Mail setup must be even more jarring. He should just feel lucky that it wasn’t the UK newsroom. From what I’ve heard, it’s a vile place to work.

Don’t agree with everything he writes though – the bit about the picture he found on social media for example. Why did he even submit it to the editor if he and the photo editor knew it wasn’t the right person? Crazy.

And UK style for court reporting does often include parentheses in headlines rather than long-winded US headline style – Doctor ‘killed patients’, rather than ‘NY State physician alleged to have murdered patients, court told’.

All daily publications routinely plagiarise stories from rivals and other media. The Daily Mail is just slightly more brazen about nicking quotes without attribution.

Don’t believe anything you read in the newspaper!

My Dad was saying that 30 years ago. I thought he was being cynical but I agree with him now.
Best thing about the internet is being able to access multiple publications in a matter of minutes – just compare how one broadsheet tackles a subject to another, or even the stories they publish and how much priority they give them. The Guardian is as bad as the Telegraph and the FT etc etc. They’re tools of influence for the owner, not tools of education.

The only reason I can think that people continue to read UK newspapers is because they want something that shores up their existing beliefs/perpetuates their desire to hide away from the obvious realities of their lives – they serve no use in education of the reader. Probably never have tbh

I’d be a bit careful before championing the integrity of US journalism, print or otherwise…

*ahem*

I was careful to focus on print, and say ‘most’!

The Murdoch empire is obviously a shining beacon of good practice, though. 🙂

Hmm, I’m not sure it’s that much worse than the Guardian and its click baiting, or for that matter it’s attempt at the worst article ever written

Plagiarise, plagiarise, plagiarise. Let no-one else’s work evadeyaeyes.

I look forward to the Dail Mail’s take on the Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifolds and how it relates to the stars of TOWIE in bikinis.

Every time a I see a seemingly intelligent person reading the Mail Online a little bit of me dies…

The
http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/kitten-block/
plugins are great from saving the inadvertent stray into click bait and celb shite that is that place.

Hmm, I’m not sure it’s that much worse than the Guardian and its click baiting, or for that matter it’s attempt at the worst article ever written

Then you’re an idiot.

The Guardian’s journalistic standards have definitely gone downhill but suggesting it’s anything like the DM online is ridiculous.

I used to be a journalist. In theory it was a job I should have loved. What’s more, people expect you to love it. But that article illustrates perfectly why that was and could never be the case. Thanks for posting OP, it was good to read it.

whats scary is that our policticans seem to live in absolute fear of the daily mail

the only one I can recall standing up to them was milliband after they tried to monster his dad and theyve been on a crusade to punish him ever since

Another ex Daily Mail journalist

I said print News was dead 10 years ago, most of the people these days who actually buy a paper are after a sensationalised acknowledgment of their own beliefs, some of them do occasionally produce some wonderful reports that a decent journalist has spent months, if not years working on – lets never forget that shockingly it was the Daily Mail who produced the most volume and best stories on the Stephen Lawrence murder and were instrumental in getting the case to court – but that was a long time ago.

Online News seems to be going the same way, The Times and The Sun seem to be doing okay with their paywalls, numbers are through the floor of course but they’re making money with it, but even so if they just produced unbiased News and Current Affairs no one would care.

News after all, despite it’s lofty ideas is 99% entertainment and 1% for the good of mankind – once in a generation a story might lead the public to demand real change but for the most part most people just want to see pictures of some Teenage starlet in a Bikini next to a story about Peados stealing pictures of their kids via an app.

The Been does a good job of being unbiased IMO, they’re also the first and most vocal when it comes to reporting their own mistakes, but the flashier Sky stuff is more sensationalist and when it comes to actually forming opinions with the Great British Public Phil and Holly, Lorraine Kelly and the Loose Women have more of an impact these days.

The Guardian is as bad as the Telegraph and the FT etc etc. They’re tools of influence for the owner, not tools of education.

Erm, nobody owns the Graun, though (or more precisely it’s owned by it’s own trust, with the aim of safeguarding editorial independence). I’m not defending their journalism here, but that particular criticism really doesn’t stack up at all.

For those that would like a higher standard of journalism may I suggest you have a look at Hacked Off. It’s something I follow closely and support with donations. The press have been doing a good job or keeping the ongoing hacking trials out of their own papers.

Hacked Off

Erm, nobody owns the Graun, though (or more precisely it’s owned by it’s own trust, with the aim of safeguarding editorial independence). I’m not defending their journalism here, but that particular criticism really doesn’t stack up at all.

As it happens, The Guardian is one of the sites I frequent. I prefer their politics to that of The Telegraph despite being centre right in my personal politics. I know it’s owned by a Trust but the editorial stance is still full of left-wing bias – which I like as a balance to my natural instincts – and in that respect it’s still no use as a form of education… the Trust replaces the owner in respect of having a particular political bias it wishes to push….

I know it’s owned by a Trust but the editorial stance is still full of left-wing bias – which I like as a balance to my natural instincts – and in that respect it’s still no use as a form of education… in that respect the Trust replaces the owner in respect of having a particular political bias it wishes to push….

You’ve switched from condemning ownership to condemning editorial policy there. My point stands, the ownership of the Guardian is nothing like being owned by Murdoch, Rothermere or the Barclay brothers.

I know it’s owned by a Trust but the editorial stance is still full of left-wing bias

Surely any paper that champions free speech and FOI is left wing by default? For all the right wing harks on about ‘individual freedoms’, their policies implement suppression and control.

Surely any paper that champions free speech and FOI is left wing by default? For all the right wing harks on about ‘individual freedoms’, their policies implement suppression and control.

Nope there is an authoritarian left and a libertarian right as well as your suggestion.

the editorial stance is still full of left-wing bias – which I like as a balance to my natural instincts – and in that respect it’s still no use as a form of education…

Everything is biased – nothing is (anywhere near) 100% reliable as a source of information. You have to be able to look at what is being presented and analyse it critically.

Whatever people might think of the Guardian’s politics it surely provides an antidote/alternative to the corporate-owned media that dominates.

Nope there is an authoritarian left and a libertarian right as well as your suggestion.

The only freedom you ever hear the libertarian right spouting on about is the freedom not to pay tax…

Whatever people might think of the Guardian’s politics it surely provides an antidote/alternative to the corporate-owned media that dominates.

Agreed, that’s why I look at their website regularly. I do like the idea of a Trust rather than a proprietor.
But as you say it’s not reliable as a source of unbiased education. Maybe not as bad as the other papers <maybe I was unfairly strong is saying The Guardian is AS bad> I mentioned but certainly not to be relied on as your primary source of education IMO