[Delwin]

Ha ha, the truth from Mail Online. They are so bad, and they still haven't taken the story down. Also, whats with the picture ? That's a Hungarian plane. I guess that's just how lazy they are journalistically. They can't even verify that the picture they are using is an actual Russian plane. So bad. Here's the plane from the picture

$1:

Pictured is a MIG-29 jet belonging to the Russian Air Force

[Jabberwalker]

Seems as if the story is a phoney. The Turks are complaining now that the "emboldened" Syrian air force is causing them problems in Turkish airspace.

[PluggyRug]

This your horse Delwin?

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

Ha ha, the truth from Mail Online. They are so bad, and they still haven't taken the story down. Also, whats with the picture ? That's a Hungarian plane.

That's it? That's your smoking guy evidence of journalistic malfeasance?

They used an Alamy Stock Photo. They listed it as such. It is a Mig 29 designed and developed in Russia by Mikoyan. There's a little hungarian pendant on the tail they maybe should have noticed. It's one of the Migs the Hungarians bought, is it? So what.

Here's the actual photo.



They missed the pendant in the back of the Alamy stock photo they leased to use.

Name me a mainstream media outlet you endorse. I'll show you worse. Much worse.

Wanna start with the CBC. There's lots but let's start with this one from 2000 just because it's handy.

I like this one, because not only did they get caught bare-faced lying, they had to pay over a million dollars for the offence.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... 22380.html

If you want to pout about that one being too old we can discuss the recent one where Evan Solomon was pocketing money from art deals with people he was doing stories on. "Wanna look good in my next piece? Can you get a tax cut on this wonderful piece of office art? They call it Poop on a Stick." Something like that.

Or how about this one:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/01 ... npaid.html

Or if you'd like to get into some real A class scummy lying journalistic crap let's talk the New York Times. Didn't they get caught winning a pulitzer prize with one that turned out to be pulled complete out a journalist's butt. That's just one. There's tons more.

But no, what really matters is when the Daily Mail misses a fuzzy image of Hungarian pendant on the rear of a stock photo of a Mig 29 they lease and list as stock, right?

You guys are unbelievable.

And why do you want them to pull the article. It was an article on rumors of a Russian Jet being shot down. Not only is it easy to show that such rumors exist, other Newspapers are still posting articles on them.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/611 ... amic-State

[Delwin]

Let's be fair, this was 10 times worse than any of that, it is in fact the worst click bait I have ever seen in my life. The implications are as large as is possible and they ran with the story based on a tweet. That people are still running it is a consequence of their actions, not a justification.

Hey guys, I just got a red a scribble on the bathroom wall that says that WW3 started. What do you think, front page tomorrow ?

[BRAH]

This is what really happened.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

Let's be fair, this was 10 times worse than any of that, it is in fact the worst click bait I have ever seen in my life. The implications are as large as is possible and they ran with the story based on a tweet. That people are still running it is a consequence of their actions, not a justification.

Hey guys, I just got a red a scribble on the bathroom wall that says that WW3 started. What do you think, front page tomorrow ?

God, what do we have to do? Wrestle you down, tie you to a chair, and blast the facts in your ear with a loudspeaker? What does it take to get through?

The story WAS the social media claims.

The Mail did make the mistake of believing they could do the same goofy stuff other mainstream media do regularly, like attract with an exaggerated title, then clarify beneath, or get lazy with using stock photos.

I've seen CBC bury the hidden detail all the way at the bottom of the story. The Mail told you it was a story based on social media claims directly below the deceptive headline. And other media are using that headline without the disclaimer below.

Hell I saw CBC photoshop black smoke onto a smokestack one time to present the idea of pollution when they were just talking about invisible carbon dioxide and the smoke in the untouched photo was actually white steam.

But you're saying a story about social media claims is worse than an outright lie CBC got sued and had to pay over a million dollars for, or their staff repeatedly getting caught selling influence for dough?

What kind of messed up value system is that? It's no wonder the MSM is becoming less credible than a 3 year old standing over a broken cookie jar. It's no wonder people are starting to like them less than debt collectors.

"CBC's sells story lines to the highest bidder, but that doesn't matter. The Daily Mail used a stock photo one time of a Hungarian Mig when they were looking for a Russian one? They can't be trusted. That's what you're saying. Those are some messed up priorities."

[Delwin]

Don't try to spin that this is not about the photo. That is just a little icing on a very large cake. A "news organization" can't just base a story off of a random tweet FD, even you know that. I could go on twitter and find anything posted about anything in about five minutes. It is tantamount to making the story up yourself which they may as well have.

Do you not believe that a news organization should do at least of modicum of verification before posting a story ? I mean is there no bottom limit ?

I know you have posted some extremely ridiculous stories from every website, blog and online journal that can be found in the asscrack of the internet and we all kind of give you a pass. It's because you're kind of like that old senile uncle that everyone just puts up with and that's fine. However, shouldn't a major news publication be held to a higher standard ?

I mean if they can just run an entire story about a major world event off of an unverified tweet, can we really keep sourcing them as news ?

[2Cdo]

Delwin Delwin:

Don't try to spin that this is not about the photo. That is just a little icing on a very large cake. A "news organization" can't just base a story off of a random tweet FD, even you know that. I could go on twitter and find anything posted about anything in about five minutes. It is tantamount to making the story up yourself which they may as well have.

Do you not believe that a news organization should do at least of modicum of verification before posting a story ? I mean is there no bottom limit ?

I know you have posted some extremely ridiculous stories from every website, blog and online journal that can be found in the asscrack of the internet and we all kind of give you a pass. It's because you're kind of like that old senile uncle that everyone just puts up with and that's fine. However, shouldn't a major news publication be held to a higher standard ?

I mean if they can just run an entire story about a major world event off of an unverified tweet, can we really keep sourcing them as news ?

It's a shame you don't hold the CBC to these same high standards.

[andyt]

link, or it didn't happen.

[N_Fiddledog]

Delwin Delwin:

Don't try to spin that this is not about the photo.

For crying out loud that was you who brought that up. I didn't even see why it mattered. In fact that was my point. It didn't matter.

$1:

I know you have posted some extremely ridiculous stories from every website, blog and online journal that can be found in the asscrack of the internet and we all kind of give you a pass.

The Daily Mail is mainstream media. You're full of crap. Your far left fantasy thinking can't make that fact false. It won't make the Progressive, group-think, pravdaesque agitprop you prefer credible or convince people to start reading it. People read the Daily Mail. They don't like your crap. Stop whining. Accept it. It's a thing called a fact. Get used to it.

The Daily Mail offered a story about Syrian journalists tweeting claims of an explosion they interpreted as a downed Russian jet.

AS did Yahoo News, The Daily Star, The london Express, The Mirror, Pakistan Today, and others.

You whining won't make the fact they reported on those claims false.

[GreenTiger]

If it is true then Good Shooting.

[pineywoodslim]

The US, the UK, France, and Turkey have all violated Syrian airspace for years now.

[desertdude]

There is a reason its called The Daily Fail