richinspain Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 25 minutes ago, 1967RAMS said: Stupid statement. Any publication that got everything wrong, wouldn’t last 60 minutes, never mind 60 years. Is the Sunday Sport still going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Millenniumram said: To be fair, I’m not sure the stories themselves are “made up”. It’s more the fact they seem to over exaggerate things and put a negative slant on every article to do with us that annoys me. Perhaps if we were better run as a football club, then the Daily Mail wouldn’t have so much ammunition. But equally, things are rarely as bad as they portray, and it’s much better as a fan to read the same story written in places like the Telegraph to get a hold of the true facts. Basically this. "Club in crisis" is always going get more attention than "Championship club has some issues and is working through them and will probably be fine" In terms of national media, DCFC is never going to be a darling or a fashionable club (Lampard and Rooney might be, but to nationals, they are the interest, not DCFC) and a whole lot of "Derby shouldn't have Lampard/Cole/Rooney, there must be something wrong here" When we get to the Prem MOTD, the papers, sky, they'll treat us the way the treated Stoke and Burnley. That's life, but I'd rather us be a proper club than a media darling club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 4 hours ago, 1967RAMS said: Stupid statement. Any publication that got everything wrong, wouldn’t last 60 minutes, never mind 60 years. Possibly not, but I would guess that the ratio for Daily Mail articles would be something like; 15 percent fact / 85 percent fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 4 hours ago, 1967RAMS said: Stupid statement. Any publication that got everything wrong, wouldn’t last 60 minutes, never mind 60 years. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website "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”. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynny Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 7 minutes ago, Pastinaak said: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website "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”. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”." Yeah but other than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, Pastinaak said: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website "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”. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”." Imagine what it says about the Express? 'No, snow isn't going to blanket the country tomorrow, and yes, Maddie probably is dead'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 14 minutes ago, Pastinaak said: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website "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”. The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”." Although, wikipedia itself must always be taken with a pinch of salt and never referenced when you turn in your assignments (and never cut and pasted into your essays, they be wise to that these days) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsnip Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 9 minutes ago, rynny said: Yeah but other than that? Very good little crossword on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uttoxram75 Posted April 23, 2020 Share Posted April 23, 2020 Rooneys still a big name, online news is all about click bait for advertising revenue and nothing to do with content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted April 24, 2020 Share Posted April 24, 2020 On 23/04/2020 at 13:26, Keepyuppy said: Reading today’s news online, I see another disparaging report relating to Derby County again. The focus is on Wayne Rooney again ?. Why does this ‘ghost writer’, presumably, a local hack who has a continual bitter axe to grind against Derby County, keep churning this crap out. As always, when the words ‘sources state’ are used, it means it’s made up and should be consigned to the bin or better still, used for personal toilet material. Wouldn't even eat my Fish n Chips out of that...….all they are good at is telling lies...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.