The Daily Fail

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Job will be livid.

...Although the Guardian should be watching their backs too...
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Really..just the Mail.

Everyone seems to be staking their claim on their righteousness.

Drew Barrymore was on Ellen degenerate this morning with tinder style swipes for celebs she fancied or not...she was like meh for most of them, then got to John Oliver, the King of leftie bullshit.
She was all over him..omg I love himmmm!
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
Lefties get all the hot chicks.

The leftist chicks are all the fatties with dyed hair who get angry on tumblr about thin people, and the desperate uggo dudes who's only hope of touching a boobie is with said chicks.
The right gets the hot chicks.
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,801
Not really. being a filthy leftie myself I know this well :)
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
That's the main reason for guys joining the student union.
To bang curious tattooed lesbians.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Not only that but being offended by everything even if you have never heard of it is serious business to an 18 year old.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,981
Freddyshouse has been ahead of the curve for a long time. Posting fail links has labelled you insta-twat for a long time.

Although since Brexit certain closet twats have been "emboldened" and now post them again...
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
I think I've asked before, for a list of approved news sources.
I presume it's based on facts, not student union hit list.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
I think I've asked before, for a list of approved news sources.
I presume it's based on facts, not student union hit list.
Really no one source is good. You need toget the info from a number of sources and compare the similarities/differences. And make your mind up from there.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
21,652
Yewtree never give up.
 

Anastasia

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
274
Is any newspaper a reliable source given that they're all peddling someone or other's politically motivated agenda. I agree with @Moriath you have read across a subject, including sources you instinctively distrust. And even then you're getting filtered, nuanced and opinionated information.

Most people just choose what to believe based on their own prejudices, I"m certain that"s true of me.
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Newspapers are just the mouthpiece for some moron, they don't have the revenue streams to be independent so must suckle the teat of their owner/investers.

The Sun, populist idiocy with a right wing bent.

The Daily Mail, basically just a racist shit rag, written and funded by idiots, for idiots... with the odd bit of celebrity child in swimwear obsession. (Ideal for @Job)

The Guardian, whatever is the trending topic down at the student union, mixed with a bit of tax dodging hypocrisy.

The Express, Daily Mail lite.

The times, the Sun through a thesaurus.

Newspapers are long dead.
 
Last edited:

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,181
I've written a fair few featured Wikipedia articles. I have had to fight on occasion to keep people from adding sources like the Mail, Sun, Mirror et al. I'm glad to see a consensus arise for this, the Daily Mail is as accurate as a diseased arse.
 

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
3,285
I've written a fair few featured Wikipedia articles. I have had to fight on occasion to keep people from adding sources like the Mail, Sun, Mirror et al. I'm glad to see a consensus arise for this, the Daily Mail is as accurate as a diseased arse.

Sir! I must disagree!! I think I am far more accurate then the Daily Mail!!!
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,270
So Wikipedia, well known as an unreliable source of information, kicks out another publication for being and unreliable source of information.

I think my irony meter just exploded.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,181
It might help you to know that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Which is why the good articles use inline citations, with a list of sources at the bottom of those articles, so that readers can check for themselves.

Here's an article I wrote. Everything is cited.

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nobody is going to tell me that there's a more comprehensive or trustworthy entry on that subject anywhere else on the internet.
 
Last edited:

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,617
Wikipedia is OK for vague facts but it is not considered a truly reliable source.

It certainly has its uses though and I think the world is better for its existence.
 

Bodhi

Once agreed with Scouse and a LibDem at same time
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,270
Lordy. You'd almost think I said Wikipedia was a n unreliable resource because Wiki themselves said so.

This does not makes things any less ironic. Probably more so in fact.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,181
It's about understanding sources and how they're used. People who assume Wikipedia isn't to be trusted are right, in a sense, but also generally ignorant of how to use Wikipedia. The solution is simple - head to the bottom of the article and check the sources. If none are offered, it's likely a very poor article. If it contains dozens of citations linked to source material that appears to be scholarly, then you're probably on the right track.

If you just want a general article on a subject, then Wikipedia is a good website to use (provided the article is good to begin with). If you want to write something more serious, then you should use that good article's sources - not Wikipedia itself.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
16,209
It might help you to know that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Which is why the good articles use inline citations, with a list of sources at the bottom of those articles, so that readers can check for themselves.

Here's an article I wrote. Everything is cited.

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nobody is going to tell me that there's a more comprehensive or trustworthy entry on that subject anywhere else on the internet.
Said the unbias authur. Lol
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,362
It might help you to know that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Which is why the good articles use inline citations, with a list of sources at the bottom of those articles, so that readers can check for themselves.

Here's an article I wrote. Everything is cited.

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Nobody is going to tell me that there's a more comprehensive or trustworthy entry on that subject anywhere else on the internet.
Yes there is, you know just because I said so. Like when you tell me I don't see cyclists run red lights all the time.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom