Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source for website

trout · Unread post by **trout** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:08 pm

Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source for website

Online encyclopaedia editors rule out publisher as a reference citing ‘reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism’

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”.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:31 pm

The Daily Mail isn't the world's most shining example of good journalism (witness its notorious denunciation of Ed Miliband over some silly remarks his father made as a teenager) and it has some very strong POVs. However, unlike Wikipedia it is a professionally run organisation and there are identifiable people, the editor and his staff, who accept responsibility for all its contents,

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:09 pm

Poetlister wrote:The Daily Mail isn't the world's most shining example of good journalism (witness its notorious denunciation of Ed Miliband over some silly remarks his father made as a teenager) and it has some very strong POVs. However, unlike Wikipedia it is a professionally run organisation and there are identifiable people, the editor and his staff, who accept responsibility for all its contents,

It's still full of crap though...

The Garbage Scow · Unread post by **The Garbage Scow** » Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:00 pm

Saw this, thought y'all might be interested. The article makes some good points about other sources that should be considered unreliable as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... or-website

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:43 am

Duplicate thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8207
Done. -- Zoloft

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:55 am

Daily Mail is on a par with the National Enquirer.

Toss them both.

tim

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:40 pm

And this will be my amusement:

There are currently over 53,000 links in English Wikipedia to Daily Mail pages.

Anyone want to bet how long it will take the Wikipediots to get that number down to even 30,000?

Anyone want to bet that the number of links one year from now (February 2018) will have actually increased from 53,000?

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:24 pm

David Gerard shares with us a preview of the Foundation's official position on the matter, which is "Nothing to do with us guv". It seems that quite a number of journalists are asking the WMF about their "ban" of the Daily Mail.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Feb 09, 2017 7:55 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Poetlister wrote:The Daily Mail isn't the world's most shining example of good journalism (witness its notorious denunciation of Ed Miliband over some silly remarks his father made as a teenager) and it has some very strong POVs. However, unlike Wikipedia it is a professionally run organisation and there are identifiable people, the editor and his staff, who accept responsibility for all its contents,
It's still full of crap though...

And Wikipedia isn't?

The Garbage Scow wrote:Saw this, thought y'all might be interested. The article makes some good points about other sources that should be considered unreliable as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... or-website

The move is highly unusual for the online encyclopaedia, which rarely puts in place a blanket ban on publications and which still allows links to sources such as Kremlin backed news organisation Russia Today, and Fox News, both of which have raised concern among editors.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:35 pm

While it seems rather unlikely that Jimbo Wales or the Foundation had anything to do with the ban, it seems that many people in the wider world fail to distinguish between the official actions of the WMF and the antics of the volunteers. It would be interesting to spin this story towards the right-leaning media as implying that Jimbo banned the Daily Mail because it was right-wing ("proof": Jimbo is on the board of the Guardian); whereas the left-leaning media might be interestd in the line that Wikipedia was somehow punishing the Mail for its allegations about Melania Trump. Probably both are equally true (i.e. not at all).

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:08 pm

Apparently, a spokesman for Mail Newspapers said: "It is hard to know whether to laugh or cry at this move by Wikipedia. For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability." Wikipediots have seized on this as "proof" that the Daily Mail is unreliable because the articles might be no more than Wikipedia mirrors, even though this would not apply to anything in the last two or three years.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:31 pm

One might also question why an Encyclopaedia should be dependent on any newspapers as a source. Typically an encyclopaedia would have articles on topics covered in peer-reviewed sources. However, it seems that WMF are keen to position Wikipedia as a source of news as well, sharing breaking news in record time,. I read that as an attempt to improve the ask to large donors, large and small, but more importantly, to give the volunteers something new to do as the "encyclopaedia" MMORPG part of the project reaches the point of diminishing returns, with small chunks of text being added from people on mobile phones who like to see themselves as "citizen journalists". Of course keeping news stories up to date by cobbling together media stories is perfect for generating a Sisyphean labour to addicts. The fact that it is Wikipedia policy not to be a source of news seems have gone out of the window, but then the WMF has hardly bothered to conceal its contempt for the lumpenproletariat over the past few years.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:34 pm

Given that Wikinews is pretty much on its last legs, Wikipedia needs to take over that function. It is often worse than Wikinews, because the latter requires articles to be checked before formal "publication" whereas Wikipedia is of course instantaneous.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:59 am

Rogol Domedonfors wrote: Of course keeping news stories up to date by cobbling together media stories is perfect for generating a Sisyphean labour to addicts.

Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.

Anthonyhcole · Unread post by **Anthonyhcole** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:49 am

greyed.out.fields wrote:Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.

Google took me to Wikiquote for that. https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Camus

Sometimes I miss a breaking story for a few days, by which time the press is taking all kinds of things as given and it's hard to grasp the full picture from current reports. In those cases the Wikipedia article on the event is very useful and, if there are lots of eyes on it, it can be as reliable as the recent news reports - many of which are simply paraphrasing earlier reports, anyway.

I asked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard whether English Wikipedia has boycotted other mainstream outlets before. Mark Miller says, "Yes. There was a similar prohibition against the use of the Huffington Post for a while." I've asked for details. (link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _before.3F[/link])

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:41 pm

The Daily Mail is striking back, and they get a lot of mileage out of pointing out that this drive against their newspaper was led mostly by a pseudonym, "Hillbillyholiday", which sounds very serious indeed.

Here are some photos of Mr. Holliday:

It's almost as if the Daily Mail is correct, in that this ban was inspired by "cynical politically motivated" ambitions, rather than a careful assessment of the reliability of sources.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:51 pm

Forbes also seemed to have a field day picking apart the Wikimedia Foundation's double-speak.

When I pointed out this out to the Wikimedia Foundation, that despite their claims that this was an entirely organic and democratic process with no influence from the Foundation, that the site’s founder was so prominently cited as supporting the argument behind the ban, they backtracked slightly and acknowledged the role and influence their founder’s views would have on such a conversation, stating “Jimmy’s voice carries weight within the Wikimedia community,”

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:46 pm

thekohser wrote:The Daily Mail is striking back, and they get a lot of mileage out of pointing out that this drive against their newspaper was led mostly by a pseudonym, "Hillbillyholiday", which sounds very serious indeed.

Here are some photos of Mr. Holliday:

It's almost as if the Daily Mail is correct, in that this ban was inspired by "cynical politically motivated" ambitions, rather than a careful assessment of the reliability of sources.

It's art for art's sake. Did you notice the quote on his user page?

Hillbillyholiday is a long time member here.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:21 pm

A question for Greg. What useful information do the images you provided of Hillbillyholiday bring to a discussion on the reliability of the Daily Mail?

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:44 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:A question for Greg. What useful information do the images you provided of Hillbillyholiday bring to a discussion on the reliability of the Daily Mail?

Possibly more than sarcastic suggestions of standing for Parliament add to a discussion about Wikipedia's BLP and COI policies.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:52 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
AndyTheGrump wrote:A question for Greg. What useful information do the images you provided of Hillbillyholiday bring to a discussion on the reliability of the Daily Mail?
Possibly more than sarcastic suggestions of standing for Parliament add to a discussion about Wikipedia's BLP and COI policies.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:54 pm

Anthonyhcole wrote:I asked at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard whether English Wikipedia has boycotted other mainstream outlets before. Mark Miller says, "Yes. There was a similar prohibition against the use of the Huffington Post for a while."

We then find:

thekohser wrote:The Daily Mail is striking back

citing an article from the Huffington Post. Good call!

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:56 pm

Zoloft wrote:Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

A good point, well made!

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 5:07 pm

thekohser wrote:It's almost as if the Daily Mail is correct, in that this ban was inspired by "cynical politically motivated" ambitions, rather than a careful assessment of the reliability of sources.

Almost? I assume that there is a touch of sarcasm here. Surely one of the best weapons in a POV war is to deny the validity of your opponent's sources.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 4:40 am

tarantino wrote:
thekohser wrote:The Daily Mail is striking back, and they get a lot of mileage out of pointing out that this drive against their newspaper was led mostly by a pseudonym, "Hillbillyholiday", which sounds very serious indeed.

Here are some photos of Mr. Holliday:

It's almost as if the Daily Mail is correct, in that this ban was inspired by "cynical politically motivated" ambitions, rather than a careful assessment of the reliability of sources.
It's art for art's sake. Did you notice the quote on his user page?

Hillbillyholiday is a long time member here.

See also the deletion discussion on commons for one of those photos. "It's called 'Art' dahlink, donchya know?"

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 5:13 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:A question for Greg. What useful information do the images you provided of Hillbillyholiday bring to a discussion on the reliability of the Daily Mail?

They give a strong indication that the source ban -- oops, I mean "prohibition" -- was a movement led by a childish man who seems more interested in personal grandstanding than in the sanctity of reference scholarship. That you would even have to ask for clarification on this gives one pause.

Signed,

Childish man who is very interested in personal grandstanding

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 7:44 am

This became very meta.

AndyTheGrump · Unread post by **AndyTheGrump** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 8:04 am

The thing is, if anyone bothers to look into the history of this, they will rapidly discover that there has been an ongoing debate about the suitability of the Daily Mail as a source going back many years. Which makes claims that it is some sort of 'movement' led by a single individual, who seems to only have begun contributing to Wikipedia in October 2012, look somewhat less than plausible. Still, mustn't let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:31 am

thekohser wrote:Forbes also seemed to have a field day picking apart the Wikimedia Foundation's double-speak.

When I reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation for comment, they emphasized right at the beginning of their email that they did not agree with the Guardian’s use of the word “ban” to refer to the action, that instead links were merely “generally prohibited” except in rare circumstances. They repeated this several times in their correspondence, each time emphasizing that it was a “prohibition” instead of a “ban.” However, at the end of the day, if you tell someone they are “prohibited” from linking to something and that if they do, you’ll likely go back and delete that link, that is a “ban” or a “blacklist” in any other word.

When I asked the Wikimedia Foundation how it ensures that the decisions of its editors reflect broader societal consensus, rather than an insular elite group of largely Western men, the Foundation did not directly respond, instead arguing that such decisions are democratic since they reflect the views of multiple editors, while avoiding the question of whether those views reflect the broader Wikipedia user community.

We have endless arguments about Facebook and Twitter’s control over what we see online, but at the end of the day if just 50 people can make a decision on behalf of all Wikipedia users worldwide based purely on their personal beliefs without a single piece of hard data supporting that decision, how are we to ever again criticize how social media companies make their decisions regarding what is permitted on their platforms?

Putting this all together, the Internet was supposed to bring the world together and give every citizen of the earth a voice – instead the same voices as before have simply become ever louder.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:55 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:The thing is, if anyone bothers to look into the history of this, they will rapidly discover that there has been an ongoing debate about the suitability of the Daily Mail as a source going back many years. Which makes claims that it is some sort of 'movement' led by a single individual, who seems to only have begun contributing to Wikipedia in October 2012, look somewhat less than plausible. Still, mustn't let the facts get in the way of a good story...

I made edits the the wikiblog well before 2012 and if asked would have said the the Mail, given it propensity to make shit up, was definitely not a reliable source for anything. The same could be said for all the redtops too (Sun, Express, Mirror, etc) and things like the Times, Grauniad, Indie, and the others aren't that much better when it comes to make bog posts that purport to be encyclopaedic.

In reality the place should not, as a general rule, be referencing news articles.

Rogol Domedonfors · Unread post by **Rogol Domedonfors** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:17 pm

Katherine Maher has spoken on the subject. To the Guardian. Highlights of the article include Reliability is all for Wikipedia but also Another core job for the foundation – and Maher – is political advocacy. Well, if the Guardian says so, it mst be true. But is reliability is all for Wikipedia, and yet by its own admission Wikipedia is not a reliable source, then what can we conclude?

Interesting to note that the interview is partly based on a visit by Maher to the Guardian. I wonder which Guardian Board member set that up.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:27 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:I wonder which Guardian Board member set that up.

The one that goes by the name Bill Sikes.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:46 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote:Katherine Maher has spoken on the subject. To the Guardian. Highlights of the article include Reliability is all for Wikipedia but also Another core job for the foundation – and Maher – is political advocacy. Well, if the Guardian says so, it mst be true. But is reliability is all for Wikipedia, and yet by its own admission Wikipedia is not a reliable source, then what can we conclude?

Interesting to note that the interview is partly based on a visit by Maher to the Guardian. I wonder which Guardian Board member set that up.

And imagine that -- another Guardian article about Wikipedia that doesn't mention Jimbo's special relationship with the newspaper. And, another Guardian article where comments are switched off.

Mason · Unread post by **Mason** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:01 am

AndyTheGrump wrote:The thing is, if anyone bothers to look into the history of this, they will rapidly discover that there has been an ongoing debate about the suitability of the Daily Mail as a source going back many years. Which makes claims that it is some sort of 'movement' led by a single individual, who seems to only have begun contributing to Wikipedia in October 2012, look somewhat less than plausible. Still, mustn't let the facts get in the way of a good story...

I recall all the 2013 ArbCom candidates getting a question about whether the Daily Mail should ever be used as a source. Whether that was asked in previous years I don't know, but the asker has been around since 2007.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:44 pm

Andrew Orlowski with another poignant assessment of things that happen at Wikipedia...

The Mail vs Wikipedia: They're more alike than they'd ever admit
The Register
13 Feb 2017

Both the Mail and Wikipedia have noble ambitions. One wishes to make the world's information free, and the other vows to defend proud provincial values from the metropolitan elites, to speak truth to power, and so on. But in reality, both depend heavily for their traffic on showbiz trivia. When we last looked a month ago, 20 of the top 25 Wikipedia pages were entertainment pages, with Star Wars and Zsa Zsa Gabor-related entries snaffling 10. Today the picture is largely the same. The notorious publicity hound Zsa Zsa Gabor has fallen out of the top 25 to be replaced by... Milo Yiannopoulos. The Mail's "sidebar of shame" specialises in celebrity "breasts and buttocks", drowning out the newspaper's highbrow contributors.

eagle · Unread post by **eagle** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:48 pm

This is all the pot calling the kettle black. What difference does it make if the sentence being supported by the Dail Mail footnote is a consensus view of a "fact."

Unread post by **Smiley** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:55 am

Interesting message on Hillbilly's talkpage.

What kind of lowlife involves their adversary's family in a personal dispute?

Hey, Greg.

Textnyymi · Unread post by **Textnyymi** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 11:41 am

The Daily Mail is often used as a source by other international online papers, therefore some of their content inevitably ends up on sites which don't carry the Daily Mail name, but carry some of their content in a form or another.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 12:45 pm

When we last looked a month ago, 20 of the top 25 Wikipedia pages were entertainment pages, with Star Wars and Zsa Zsa Gabor-related entries snaffling 10.

When they last looked a month ago, Zsa Zsa had just died and the latest Star Wars outing had just been released. Duh. You can write articles on every flea and and every battle in the War of the Austrian Succession, but you can't make people interested in them.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:16 pm

Smiley wrote:What kind of lowlife involves their adversary's family in a personal dispute?

Hey, Greg.

That's funny, and (I think) about 4% relevant to me. A few off-hand comments I've made online have not represented my best foot forward, to be sure... but I've never physically tried to encounter any Wiki-person's family member. Ever. So...

right back at you, "Smiley", whomever you happen to be hiding behind a pseudonym, while I identify by my thoughts and words and actions.

Bezdomni · Unread post by **Bezdomni** » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:11 pm

Rogol Domedonfors wrote: It would be interesting to spin this story towards the right-leaning media as implying that Jimbo banned the Daily Mail because it was right-wing ("proof": Jimbo is on the board of the Guardian)

Hey Rogol. In my view, in the interests of ethical disclosure, irrespective of Wales' opinion on the Daily Mail matter it might have been more balanced to have a disclaimer noting that fact rather than having a pride of place sidebar link to their "Wikipedia: the unplanned miracle" article. This is neither right nor left, just fair reporting... (but then IAC publications like the Daily Beast didn't list Chelsea Clinton as a board member on every news / op-ed story they published either...)

What's most interesting, I think, is that while 50 wikipediants can ban/prohibit/purge the Mail from en.wiki, this tiny cabal's voice is amplified by media-watchers' awareness of Wikimedia's market share of internet visitors. (Thanks, sparkzilla, for the info). With Jeff Bezos at #5 and #17, the pride of place accorded to the WaPo as the epitome of an RS (it's the example given, of course) strikes me as just a bit twisted, given that it was so partisan during the election (taking down Sanders, then Stein). Concerning Trump, well, no comment... I see there are only 2426 search results for Breitbart (almost as many as the much older Democracy Now!), and 79 from Naked Capitalism. Love that the WaPo is still immortalized in faux Chicago Tribune Dewey-style reporting "Clinton celebrates victory" at Wikipedia, that's one bit of not-so-fake news! ^^

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:56 am

Ming wrote:
When we last looked a month ago, 20 of the top 25 Wikipedia pages were entertainment pages, with Star Wars and Zsa Zsa Gabor-related entries snaffling 10.
When they last looked a month ago, Zsa Zsa had just died and the latest Star Wars outing had just been released. Duh. You can write articles on every flea and and every battle in the War of the Austrian Succession, but you can't make people interested in them.

Sverker created Lsjbot to create as many articles as possible on the Cebuano Wikipedia, hoping that more people would edit it. Lsjbot succeeded in making the Cebuano Wikipedia well on its way to eclipse the English Wikipedia, but it has only ten or so active editors.

Not many Filipinos are interested in minor islands in Nunavut such as Crescent Island (Nunavut) (T-H-L) (Cebuano version: https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent ... ,_Nunavut))

However, the English Wikipedia lacks an article on Ned Island (T-H-L), but the Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia do: https://www.google.ca/search?q=allintit ... jwTgkaPoCg

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:32 am

Johnny Au wrote:Sverker created Lsjbot to create as many articles as possible on the Cebuano Wikipedia, hoping that more people would edit it. Lsjbot succeeded in making the Cebuano Wikipedia well on its way to eclipse the English Wikipedia, but it has only ten or so active editors.

Not many Filipinos are interested in minor islands in Nunavut such as Crescent Island (Nunavut) (T-H-L) (Cebuano version: https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent ... ,_Nunavut))

However, the English Wikipedia lacks an article on Ned Island (T-H-L), but the Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia do: https://www.google.ca/search?q=allintit ... jwTgkaPoCg

Not sure what that has to do with the Daily Mail ban. Did you mean to post this in the Cebuano Wikipedia thread?

Johnny Au · Unread post by **Johnny Au** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:33 pm

thekohser wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:Sverker created Lsjbot to create as many articles as possible on the Cebuano Wikipedia, hoping that more people would edit it. Lsjbot succeeded in making the Cebuano Wikipedia well on its way to eclipse the English Wikipedia, but it has only ten or so active editors.

Not many Filipinos are interested in minor islands in Nunavut such as Crescent Island (Nunavut) (T-H-L) (Cebuano version: https://ceb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent ... ,_Nunavut))

However, the English Wikipedia lacks an article on Ned Island (T-H-L), but the Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedia do: https://www.google.ca/search?q=allintit ... jwTgkaPoCg
Not sure what that has to do with the Daily Mail ban. Did you mean to post this in the Cebuano Wikipedia thread?

It does: Lsjbot (T-H-L)

It even has citations from the Daily Mail!

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:41 pm

Johnny Au wrote:It does: Lsjbot (T-H-L)

It even has citations from the Daily Mail!

I'm still scratching my mostly bald head, unable to figure out what Lsjbot has to do with the Daily Mail ban on Wikipedia.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 2:02 pm

Smiley wrote:Interesting message on Hillbilly's talkpage.

Not to worry, Jimbo is on the case.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:16 pm

thekohser wrote:
Johnny Au wrote:It does: Lsjbot (T-H-L)

It even has citations from the Daily Mail!
I'm still scratching my mostly bald head, unable to figure out what Lsjbot has to do with the Daily Mail ban on Wikipedia.

It's very tangential. The Lsjbot article still has a link to the Daily Mail despite the ban.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:36 pm

We may have a reliable source that the Daily Mail is unreliable. Donald Trump's press secretary excluded it from his daily briefing, apparently because it is a purveyor of "fake news". However, he also excluded the BBC, Guardian, Huffington Post, CNN, Buzzfeed and the New York Times on similar grounds. Oh, I've cited the Huffington Post, so maybe I should find a better source for this post.

lonza leggiera · Unread post by **lonza leggiera** » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:23 am

Poetlister wrote:We may have a reliable source that the Daily Mail is unreliable. Donald Trump's press secretary excluded it from his daily briefing, apparently because it is a purveyor of "fake news". However, he also excluded the BBC, Guardian, Huffington Post, CNN, Buzzfeed and the New York Times on similar grounds. Oh, I've cited the Huffington Post, so maybe I should find a better source for this post.

Well, you could always try the presidentially endorsed Breitbart News.

P.S. Scrub that. Breitbart doesn't nominate any specific news organisation as having definitely been excluded from the briefing. It merely says that "several news outlets were apparently excluded from a White House press gaggle" [emphasis mine], quotes a tweet from CNN to the effect that it had been so excluded, and opines that "CNN and other outlets were in high dudgeon" over the issue.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:59 pm

I suppose that the next enemies that Trump will brand as purveyors of fake news will be the Bureau of Economic Analysis (T-H-L) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (T-H-L) "I'm telling you, my economic policies are so good, the country is booming. And these failing organizations are saying unemployment is up and the economy is going to hell. So bad! Fake news!!"