Which tabloid newspaper do you trust to tell the accurate truth
 

Just wondering which ones people still care for... I don’t see any of them lasting too long into the future tbh.

Depends of the genre of the topic

Like the Sun is only trustworthy with TV/RTV

You trust social media? :umm2: It's the only platform that's WORSE than tabloids.

... I’m thinking more along the lines of ‘Daily Mail* shared an article, click top comments, watch people angrily explain why their article is bull****’.

*literally anything though, DM seems to be hit hardest

None, I generally trust TV/radio reportage though, they tend to deal in facts

A good poll.

They ALL tell the truth more often than not, but no matter what the source is, if an article takes my interest I carry out further research and cross-reference.

I can see that I suppose; social media is at times good for holding the media to account when it provides misinformation (where in the past, there wasn't really a voice right there saying "lol this is nonsense")... however, I don't think that means that the things that ARE claimed on social media are likely to be any more accurate. Some of the trash that gets shared around is mind-boggling... like "inspirational quotes about women that Einstein said", then you try to look it up, and find that the original quote just said "people" not "women"... ... and it wasn't even Einstein.

FT.

More than the written tabloids, I guess, but they do like to occasionally display their bias whether that's intentional or not. Also, I think the televised news in the UK is uncommonly neutral... In the US for example it's the other way around; their daily newspapers aren't as bad as our tabloids (though they have some other pretty out-there periodical publications :umm2: ) BUT their televised news is a complete mess. Just... squawking idiots, basically.

You use every opportunity to diss the Mail because they don’t share your left views. Personally I think one of the most biased papers out there is the Guardian - but no surprise the left on here went for it.

They "lie with the truth" though, Kirk, and mislead by omission. And sadly, most people don't have the wisdom to seek out multiple sources and cross reference to find something closer to the objective truth.

An interesting article on "lying using the truth" here, if you have the time or inclination to have a read :joker: (it's not very long)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/b...ling-the-truth

Well you think the Guardian is the worst tabloid, i think the Mail is the worst tabloid :shrug: not sure why you needed to say that in such a hostile way.

The Mail and The Guardian are just flipsides of the same coin. Guardian used to be OK but it went full Tabloid a couple of years back and is now just more chippy paper.

Not our Nicky trusting The Sun :worry:. It's practically a work of fiction...

Wouldn't consider the Independent, Guardian or Times to be tabloid...

Good point, Shaun. I did think that but just went along with the description.

Could you explain why you think that, Withano?

Every quote from The Daily Mail which I have used on here contained nothing but facts.

When did you last read it though? A couple of years ago, no. In the last couple of years, it absolutely is. As in, they had an open, deliberate and concentrated effort to convert it into a tabloid both in form and function, and now they are only really interested in publishing tabloid-style articles. (Because it sells better).

The DM is one of the worst for lying by omission, in my experience (read my link!).

Basically they will cherry pick aspects of a situation to report on the support the idea they're trying to push, whilst leaving out "the other side of the story" that doesn't fit their agenda. So what they are saying can be verified as being "basically factual" - and importantly (for them) can't be DISproven, but as it isn't the WHOLE story. It can't be called a lie, but it still isn't representative of the truth.

I remember when they led people into believing that Labours proposed ‘garden tax’ meant that everybody with a garden was gonna be taxed more lol. When actually it was only going to affect people with several acres of spare, unused land. I guess it’s half to do with their core audience, but I dont think they're innocent in the ways they tell a story.

Thats the only example off the top of my head but i used to have regular ‘oh not again’ moments when somebody claimed outrage whilst citing daily mail without factchecking. I believe them to be regularly and deliberately hazy on the important details.

Their coverage of the local elections led people to celebrate for questionable reasons too, whilst they skirted around the actual figures and statistics.

Take each article as it comes though. Whats true of one DM journalist wont be true for the lot of them.... they just do have the worst reputation of the lot for me.

I suppose you could say...

"A fact in isolation often has no utility in determining wider truth of a complex situation"

- Toy Soldier, 2018

Well no paper prints outright falsehoods although they all represent things differently. The problem is when people accept things uncritically rather than looking beyond the headlines or the slant that a paper gives a story

I generally prefer the Times or Telegraph but I like the Sun for a lighter read. The Independent is not a newspaper now

#Hillsborough.

That'll be why then :laugh: haven't read it in about ten years.

An editorial mistake made decades ago which everyone accepts and that they have apologised for, not bothered

Can’t remember the last time I looked at a paper, even the local rag are guilty of copying a story they have seen that I know to be untrue.
Enough twisting of words on the telly as well, so best to take it all with a pinch of salt unless you actually see the full context of any conversation.

Any publification with a political agenda can't be trusted to not spin the stories they print because they are trying to attract a certain audience and people have a tendency to only want to listen to things they want to hear.

I rarely take one source as gospel, if multiple different publications with different alignments report something in a similar way then you know it's likely the unspun truth.

As for why the Daily Mail is worse than the rest, It's known for stirring up trouble so they can report on it and they are one of the worst newspapers for misrepresenting the facts and for spin.

A good newspaper reports on the news, it doesn't try to create it.

all the newspapers are untrustworthy. ITV News have generated their own news on multiple occasions so are untrustworthy. Sky News has an obvious political agenda, the BBC has its own agendas too. Social media is worse than them all put together so all in all, we have a great choice

tbh a few of them get on my nerves :notimpressed: , but when it comes to important news i still read most of those . The daily mail & the sun are the most irritating .

I read watch and read a lot as I like to judge for myself than I trust any singular source... but sometimes at best, truth is simply a guess. It's not always possible to determine whether the information we receive is objective, much less from an objective source... and I think that the media is chronically dishonest when they try to portray themselves as objective in their pieces... I think journalists need to be able to say it's my POV, but here's the facts, and there may be information missing here that could change my opinion... (especially when the story is obviously incomplete)

One thing I like about reading is I get a different POV, a difference in perspective... it may not be right, but it gives me things to consider when presented facts in other areas... sometimes we see the trees, but then miss the forest...

The times comes closest tbh. But all tabloids have their own biases..some much worse than others (guardian and mail..am looking at you)