#notcredible

Wikipedia editors have voted to ban the Daily Mail as a source for the website in all but exceptional circumstances after deeming the news group “generally unreliable”.

Daily Heil
Nickname of British tabloid newspaper, the Daily Mail. Acquired during its support for Mosley's blackshirts and for Hitler during the 30s, the nickname, along with the Mail's politics, has remained unchanged since.
Daily Mail! Daily Heil! (30s slogan)

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Daily%20Heil

How about instead of a drive by tidbit you actually go deeper into the question of whether the Daily Mail's report is reliable. Its one thing to say that Daily Mail has some credibility issues and ask how this story can be verified. Its another thing to just claim it is unreliable and skip off, that just makes it look like you are biased against what is in the report rather than whether it is true or not.

If you are going to try and be objective you have to do it consistently.

I think he does have a point here though.

We should always remember to apply skepticism and double check sources, not just when they report something not in our favor.

However I would say that he should have done more than just a drive by snippet and addressed the question of validity seriously.

Many people here already do what u ask b4 posting. Which makes what u think of rhay's point moot.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Many people here already do what u ask b4 posting. Which makes what u think of rhay's point moot.

I often wonder why things that go without saying have to be said so often...

Many people here already do what u ask b4 posting. Which makes what u think of rhay's point moot.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My comment was a general one, not trying to say everyone here is guilty of failing to take steps to verify a story.

Media still quiet as usual. No wonder why xhe doesnt understand.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

My comment was a general one, not trying to say everyone here is guilty of failing to take steps to verify a story.

Lets norrow it down, who post here often without questioning 1st? As in post 1 sided stuff or links that are often disproven.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Media still quiet as usual. No wonder why xhe doesnt understand.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Why do you say the media is being silent? When I was looking for more news on this story I saw multiple major outlets, even CNN that covered this story.

Lets norrow it down, who post here often without questioning 1st? As in post 1 sided stuff or links that are often disproven.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I know where you are going with this haha

Why do you say the media is being silent? When I was looking for more news on this story I saw multiple major outlets, even CNN that covered this story.

When I posted this they were silent. Only took a few days to post the story. Compared to them jumping on fake stories very quickly. They are only posting about it so they can seem objective and no one can say later that they didn't post about it.

Now reverse the roles, like if Trumps people were to pay to spy on Clinton.  This would be non-stop coverage for months. Do you see how the unfairness of the fake news is going?

I know where you are going with this haha

Damn, my bait didn't work. 

Now the fake news are slowly trickling in, that trump was right again. Weird how it took the main media outlets so long to finally post the story. Its like they "fact check" b4 releasing.

Inb4 SWOOOOOOSSSSHHHHHH is needed.

What ive learned in the past 6 years is if the fake news is quick to post a Trump story, it's probably BS. If they take longer than normal, it holds weight.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

those MSM reporters better be careful drivers...

 

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Damn, my bait didn't work. 

Subtlety needs awareness of nuances. . .

#swoosh

When I posted this they were silent. Only took a few days to post the story. Compared to them jumping on fake stories very quickly. They are only posting about it so they can seem objective and no one can say later that they didn't post about it.

Now reverse the roles, like if Trumps people were to pay to spy on Clinton.  This would be non-stop coverage for months. Do you see how the unfairness of the fake news is going?

Careful, you are leaning towards circular reasoning there.  (they don't report it because they are bad, they report it because they are bad)

It has happened quite often where I have heard people claim a certain outlet isn't reporting the story but I find the story on the outlet's page. In this case I checked the first day I heard about the story on the radio. Seemed too big a story to not report on.

Careful, you are leaning towards circular reasoning there.  (they don't report it because they are bad, they report it because they are bad)

It has happened quite often where I have heard people claim a certain outlet isn't reporting the story but I find the story on the outlet's page. In this case I checked the first day I heard about the story on the radio. Seemed too big a story to not report on.

No its not leaning toward circular reasoning. Think deeper at what i said.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

No its not leaning toward circular reasoning. Think deeper at what i said.

It would only be circular if you blasted them for failing to report the story 2 days ago, then blasted them again for posting it today.

He doesn't seem to get you are blasting them ONLY for not carrying the story when it was fresh.  Now that the players have had time to do fire control to a small degree, the MSM is trickling the story out WITH THE INCLUDED COMMENTS from Hillary saying this is a far right-wing and FOX News attempt to smear her in case she decides to run again.

She obviously didn't catch the real story, because this is coming from the Durham Investigation, not FOX News Opinion editors.

No its not leaning toward circular reasoning. Think deeper at what i said.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

So is this an indictment on past reporting then, where they jumped on stories against Trump so quickly but this time took their time to investigate? Should both sides have taken more time to post?

I can't help but wonder if things aren't just switched. Fox News jumps all over this story because it is anti-Clinton like how CNN did in anti-Trump stories.

BTW, what was the time difference between when Fox news reported it vs CNN, was there even a significant delay?

So is this an indictment on past reporting then, where they jumped on stories against Trump so quickly but this time took their time to investigate? Should both sides have taken more time to post?

I can't help but wonder if things aren't just switched. Fox News jumps all over this story because it is anti-Clinton like how CNN did in anti-Trump stories.

BTW, what was the time difference between when Fox news reported it vs CNN, was there even a significant delay?

This is what the New York Times reported:

Durham says Clinton campaign funded surveillance of Trump Tower, White House

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/12/durham-says-clinton-campaign-funded-surveillance-t/

This is what MSNBC reported (from the Washington Post):

How the right embraced the false claim that Hillary Clinton ‘spied’ on President Donald Trump

Patel did not respond to a request for comment. The deep-in-the-weeds connection between his 2017
inquiries and the Durham probe reflects the unusual web of Durham-focused influencers that helped
drive the narrative that the latest Durham filing was a monumental bombshell.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-the-right-embraced-the-false-claim-that-hillary-clinton-spied-on-president-donald-trump/ar-AAU1hEG

Facts vs. "narrative?"  LOL!!

Does it matter if it was 1,3, or 10 days between reports?  If the MSM wants you to believe they took that time to "verify and fact-check" the information, maybe they should post the information without all the propaganda and opinionated spin?

But, you  believe who you want.  You still don't believe the Russia Collusion hoax was a lie, even in light of Durham's findings ... SO FAR!