No reasonable person could possibly believe the nonsense published by the Mail Online and Daily Mail

[Swammerdami]

'Tittle' isn't a new word; It appears (famously) in the King James Bible (Matthew 5:18), so it's been around for at least four centuries.

It's the superscript dot that appears above the lowercase letters i and j in English.

Thanks for this! I've either learned a new word, or had some of my aging neurons rejoggled. I guess your "tittle" comes from the infamous Q-source, since a similar reference is found at Luke 16:17.

The word is also found in Love's Labour Lost, a famous play from the pen of the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford.

Shall I command thy love? I may. Shall I enforce thy love? I could. Shall I entreat thy love? I will. What shalt thou exchange for rags?- robes, for tittles?- titles, for thyself? -me.

 

[thebeave]

Obviously headlines are often crude (and exaggerated) summaries of an article. But nobody here has deigned to display the actual exaggerated headline. “British towns that are no-go areas for white people” isn't even a complete sentence.

I consider myself a reasonable person and I would certainly not infer from such a headline that zero white people visit Town X. In fact, in interpreting the article I would ignore the headline, with its ambiguous non-word "No-Go" and search the article for the relevant sentence(s), hoping it is grammatical and composed of actual English words. (Is there a link in the thread to the article and its headline, but which I missed?)

We've discussed the Rachel Maddow case before; I didn't even feel her carefully worded exaggeration was even false.

It might be interesting to display side-by-side the precise statements made by Maddow and by Carlson which were adjudicated by these rulings. (The comparison might be futile, with lefties and trighties just taking the obvious partisan positions. But it might be an interesting exercise for those of us — if any — that attempt to be objective.)

Did the lawyers literally say what tittle says?

Mail Online exaggerates and so did bilby in his tittle.

One misspelling can be blamed on a key's anti-bounce feature, but the repetition suggests something else is at work. Have you coined a new word, meaning a "headline which titillates ? Be aware the "titillates" has only three T's.

If you want to know what Maddow and Carlson said that warranted the lawsuits, you could start by actually reading the link I posted. It tells you in there. To summarize, they both used words that were a bit hyperbolic compared to their actual meaning. The difference between the two is largely insignificant. The point is what I said earlier. Both are biased, both lie and neither is to be trusted to always give you factual content.

I've left Mr. Beave's quote intact, so that the following comment will be more pointed.

If YOU want to learn how to strip unrelated text from quotes, you could ask politely and hope a fellow Infidel would oblige. OR you could begin by Googling "Trivial message-board tasks for Dummies."

Meanwhile, you seem curiously eager to characterize the relevant Maddow-Carlson comments for someone unwilling to submit to the quoted implicit request: "It might be interesting to display side-by-side the precise statements". I'm afraid I didn't scroll to check your alleged link. Is it to the Daily Mail?

That's all you got? Making fun of my post quoting on this message board? I guess I should be thankful that I don't have a public social media presence. You'd probably point out how much a "dummy" I am because you saw an Instagram photo where I was wearing white after Labor Day.

As far as a side by side comparison of the Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow lawsuits, you could have done that yourself. You could begin by Googling, "Trivial Internet searching for Dummies". But I'll save you the trouble. And by the way, this is from APNews, not the Daily Mail, as you seem to think. The actual statements from each are bolded:

Judge dismisses suit against Fox over Trump affair story

Karen McDougal had alleged in the suit filed late last year that Fox host Tucker Carlson slandered her by calling the payout “a classic case of extortion.” U.S. District Court Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled on Thursday that McDougal failed to prove that Carlson was accusing her of an actual crime in a way that would back up a defamation claim.

The judge called the on-air remarks “rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and as such, are not actionable as defamation,” the judge said in a written ruling.

One America News sues Rachel Maddow for $10 million

The lawsuit contends that Maddow’s comment on her July 22 MSNBC show were retaliation after OAN President Charles Herring accused cable television giant Comcast of censorship. The suit contends that Comcast refused to carry the channel because it “counters the liberal politics of Comcast’s own news channel, MSNBC.”

A week after Herring sent an email to a Comcast executive, Maddow opened her MSNBC show by referring to a report in the Daily Beast that said an OAN employee also worked for Sputnik News, which is linked to the Russian government.

“In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda,” Maddow said on “The Rachel Maddow Show.”

“Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government,” Maddow said.

 

[thebeave]

It seems this is a common defense these days. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson have used the same argument when they get caught spreading misinformation. Why anyone would take their word on things as the gospel truth is beyond me.

In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

Not recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board. Making this “whataboutism” absurd. It’s almost as if Maddow fans know the difference between fact and opinion, and Daily Mail quoters do not.

Highlighting the absurdity of anyone quoting the Daily Mail as a source; they either know they are presenting exaggerations and lies, or they are unalble to detect exaggerations and lies.

Just as the OP said.

I was not intending to play a "whataboutism" game. I was merely expressing my observation that the Daily Mail's defense seems to be common and is largely the same one used in the Maddow and Carlson lawsuit cases. It was my personal comment on the sad state of affairs in journalism and media today. I'm not a supporter of the Daily Mail, Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson and I don't recall ever citing their statements/comments in a thread, at least as regards to being factual.

Plus, I never said people on this board were using Rachel Maddow as a source of news. How did you get that out of what I wrote? But, feel free to do a search on this board for "Maddow". I think you will find quite a number of instances where people here were referencing her MSNBC program as though it was factual and true news. One person here (I won't name names) recently claimed "Rachel Maddow presents facts", so take that for what its worth.

 

[Jarhyn]

It seems this is a common defense these days. Both Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson have used the same argument when they get caught spreading misinformation. Why anyone would take their word on things as the gospel truth is beyond me.

In an oddly overlooked ruling, an Obama-appointed federal judge, Cynthia Bashant, dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that even Maddow's own audience understands that her show consists of exaggeration, hyperbole, and pure opinion, and therefore would not assume that such outlandish accusations are factually true even when she uses the language of certainty and truth when presenting them (“literally is paid Russian propaganda").

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual, the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:

Not recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board. Making this “whataboutism” absurd. It’s almost as if Maddow fans know the difference between fact and opinion, and Daily Mail quoters do not.

Highlighting the absurdity of anyone quoting the Daily Mail as a source; they either know they are presenting exaggerations and lies, or they are unalble to detect exaggerations and lies.

Just as the OP said.

I was not intending to play a "whataboutism" game. I was merely expressing my observation that the Daily Mail's defense seems to be common and is largely the same one used in the Maddow and Carlson lawsuit cases. It was my personal comment on the sad state of affairs in journalism and media today. I'm not a supporter of the Daily Mail, Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson and I don't recall ever citing their statements/comments in a thread, at least as regards to being factual.

Plus, I never said people on this board were using Rachel Maddow as a source of news. How did you get that out of what I wrote? But, feel free to do a search on this board for "Maddow". I think you will find quite a number of instances where people here were referencing her MSNBC program as though it was factual and true news. One person here (I won't name names) recently claimed "Rachel Maddow presents facts", so take that for what its worth.

Rachel Maddow defended a clear joke embedded in a large statement as a piece of minor hyperbole. It is by the context that Maddow's joke is well framed and indicated as something no person should take seriously.

The deliverable on this is thusly:

No sane, serious person would take (a hyperbolic statement said as a joke, in a joking voice) as anything beyond (joking hyperbole), of Maddow.

...

The Daily Mail defended an article title not unique among their articles, one of many and indistinct as nonsense. There is no context by which this statement of nonsense is in any way distinct from their other articles.

The deliverable on this is thusly:

No sane, serious person would take (any article at all published therein) as anything beyond (nonsense), of The Daily Mail.

...

The defense is the same, but the thing defended creates very different implications for the parties using those defenses.

One party retains a legal right to claim factual content, so long as exaggerations and editorializing are clearly demarked.

The second party, The Daily Mail, loses any right to claim factual content at all.

One says "only a fool will believe a joke", and the other says "only a fool will believe us at all!"

It's not an apt comparison to make.

I know you will make it again, granted, but it is not apt either way.

 

[Metaphor]

Not recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.

Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.

According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rate
as 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

The Daily Mail has a rating of 'Low - numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing'.

So no, these sources are in fact 'not quite as bad', in contradiction to your claim of 'even worse'.

So even were your Tu Quoque not a logical fallacy (it does nothing to refute the claim that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are shit sources that lie and should never be depended upon), it would also fail on the grounds of being false.

Offering a false statement that doesn't even address the claim in question as a rebuttal is, frankly, fucking pathetic.

You still need to stop using the Daily Mail as a source. It's still unjustifiable to do so. Unless you have a less fucking awful rebuttal that you discarded in favour of that horrible non-rebuttal you were attempting?

Sorry, when did we all agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com was a reliable site?

 

[Metaphor]

Rachel Maddow defended a clear joke embedded in a large statement as a piece of minor hyperbole. It is by the context that Maddow's joke is well framed and indicated as something no person should take seriously.

The deliverable on this is thusly:

No sane, serious person would take (a hyperbolic statement said as a joke, in a joking voice) as anything beyond (joking hyperbole), of Maddow.

...

The Daily Mail defended an article title not unique among their articles, one of many and indistinct as nonsense. There is no context by which this statement of nonsense is in any way distinct from their other articles.

The deliverable on this is thusly:

No sane, serious person would take (any article title at all published therein) as anything beyond (nonsense), of The Daily Mail.

Fixed it for you with the underlined and bolded word, so that your false analogy is not as misleading as it was.

 

[Metaphor]

...at least, not according to the Mail Online, whose lawyers attempted to use this as a defence in the IPSO hearing against them for publishing an article referring to “British towns that are no-go areas for white people”

No. Your thread title is false, and the sentence above is false.

A quote from The Guardian article below:

According to Ipso, Mail Online claimed it “considered it to be ‘extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would have taken the impression from the headline that entire towns in Britain are […] entirely inaccessible to white people’”.

Mail Online is correct. It is extremely unlikely that reasonable readers would believe, from the headline alone, that entire towns are inaccessible to white people.

Mail Online did not say what you claimed in your thread title. In any case, even if it had said

"Our headlines are complete sensationalist nonsense unsupported by the facts relayed in the body of the text", your thread title would still be incorrect.

Notice that the dispute was not about any of the facts relayed in the article content--only the impression implied by the headline was challenged.

I wonder if the various posters here who have cited this (and similar) claims from the Mail Online and Daily Mail in such threads as the 'Europe Submits Voluntarily' mega-thread, have grounds to sue the Mail for defamation, as it appears to me that the Mail is explicitly saying that they were unreasonable to take the Mail seriously.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...t-over-town-being-no-go-area-for-white-people

Seriously, when your sources start explicitly saying that you would have to be crazy to believe them, it's well past time to stop using them as sources.

That is false. The source said one particular interpretation of its headline is an unreasonable thing to believe, and they are correct. Neither the source, nor the press standards authority, disputed the facts relayed in the body of the text.

 

[bilby]

Not recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.

Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.

According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rate
as 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

The Daily Mail has a rating of 'Low - numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing'.

So no, these sources are in fact 'not quite as bad', in contradiction to your claim of 'even worse'.

So even were your Tu Quoque not a logical fallacy (it does nothing to refute the claim that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are shit sources that lie and should never be depended upon), it would also fail on the grounds of being false.

Offering a false statement that doesn't even address the claim in question as a rebuttal is, frankly, fucking pathetic.

You still need to stop using the Daily Mail as a source. It's still unjustifiable to do so. Unless you have a less fucking awful rebuttal that you discarded in favour of that horrible non-rebuttal you were attempting?

Sorry, when did we all agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com was a reliable site?

Sorry, when did I ask you to agree with anything?

Other fact checking sites are available; That was literally the first one in my google search.

Orhers appear to have reached similar conclusions; And they include detailed sources and evidence for their assessments. If you don't like their results, I don't give a crap. You can take it up with them - it's their speciality and they probably enjoy vacuous challenges from nit-picking arseholes who have no substantive objections, but who want to throw shade on anyone who dares disagree with their strongly held opinions.

 

[Metaphor]

Not recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.

Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.

According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rate
as 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

The Daily Mail has a rating of 'Low - numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing'.

So no, these sources are in fact 'not quite as bad', in contradiction to your claim of 'even worse'.

So even were your Tu Quoque not a logical fallacy (it does nothing to refute the claim that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are shit sources that lie and should never be depended upon), it would also fail on the grounds of being false.

Offering a false statement that doesn't even address the claim in question as a rebuttal is, frankly, fucking pathetic.

You still need to stop using the Daily Mail as a source. It's still unjustifiable to do so. Unless you have a less fucking awful rebuttal that you discarded in favour of that horrible non-rebuttal you were attempting?

Sorry, when did we all agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com was a reliable site?

Sorry, when did I ask you to agree with anything?

When you posted something on a message board and therefore invited people to respond. If you mean 'when did you ask me personally', you didn't.

Other fact checking sites are available; That was literally the first one in my google search.

That doesn't answer my implied question. What criteria are you using to evaluate the truthfulness of any particular website? In particular, what makes you trust anything mediabiasfactcheck.com publishes? And, more importantly, why should I trust mediabiasfactcheck.com over the Daily Mail? If you mean 'you have to use your own judgment', I agree. That's why I freely read The Guardian, knowing it has a hard left bias, but also knowing they would not simply make up events from whole cloth.

Orhers appear to have reached similar conclusions; And they include detailed sources and evidence for their assessments. If you don't like their results, I don't give a crap. You can take it up with them - it's their speciality and they probably enjoy vacuous challenges from nit-picking arseholes who have no substantive objections, but who want to throw shade on anyone who dares disagree with their strongly held opinions.

This is a very, very angry response from you when I pointed out a fair criticism.

You don't trust the Daily Mail. Or rather, as I suspect, you say you cannot trust it as a source of facts and don't want to address anything reported on the site, because what the Daily Mail reports does not fit your narrative. You found a website that confirmed your prejudices and decided that that was evidence, even though your thread title is false and your arguments are both unsound and invalid, as I point out in post 27.

 

[ZiprHead]

Not recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.

Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.

According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rate
as 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

The Daily Mail has a rating of 'Low - numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing'.

So no, these sources are in fact 'not quite as bad', in contradiction to your claim of 'even worse'.

So even were your Tu Quoque not a logical fallacy (it does nothing to refute the claim that the Daily Mail and Mail Online are shit sources that lie and should never be depended upon), it would also fail on the grounds of being false.

Offering a false statement that doesn't even address the claim in question as a rebuttal is, frankly, fucking pathetic.

You still need to stop using the Daily Mail as a source. It's still unjustifiable to do so. Unless you have a less fucking awful rebuttal that you discarded in favour of that horrible non-rebuttal you were attempting?

Sorry, when did we all agree that mediabiasfactcheck.com was a reliable site?

Sorry, when did I ask you to agree with anything?

When you posted something on a message board and therefore invited people to respond. If you mean 'when did you ask me personally', you didn't.

Other fact checking sites are available; That was literally the first one in my google search.

That doesn't answer my implied question. What criteria are you using to evaluate the truthfulness of any particular website? In particular, what makes you trust anything mediabiasfactcheck.com publishes? And, more importantly, why should I trust mediabiasfactcheck.com over the Daily Mail? If you mean 'you have to use your own judgment', I agree. That's why I freely read The Guardian, knowing it has a hard left bias, but also knowing they would not simply make up events from whole cloth.

Orhers appear to have reached similar conclusions; And they include detailed sources and evidence for their assessments. If you don't like their results, I don't give a crap. You can take it up with them - it's their speciality and they probably enjoy vacuous challenges from nit-picking arseholes who have no substantive objections, but who want to throw shade on anyone who dares disagree with their strongly held opinions.

This is a very, very angry response from you when I pointed out a fair criticism.

You don't trust the Daily Mail. Or rather, as I suspect, you say you cannot trust it as a source of facts and don't want to address anything reported on the site, because what the Daily Mail reports does not fit your narrative. You found a website that confirmed your prejudices and decided that that was evidence, even though your thread title is false and your arguments are both unsound and invalid, as I point out in post 27.

Instead of kvetching about Bilby's source, perhaps you should post one that provides a differant score more inline with your political sensibilities.

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind

 

[laughing dog]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

 

[Metaphor]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

But bilby made a false, non-figurative claim: that no reasonable person could believe what the Daily Mail publishes (in his thread title) and that the Daily Mail itself claimed this (in his OP).

Both claims are false.

 

[bilby]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

But bilby made a false, non-figurative claim: that no reasonable person could believe what the Daily Mail publishes (in his thread title) and that the Daily Mail itself claimed this (in his OP).

Both claims are false.

No, they're not.

The first claim is certainly true.

The second is true in its context, but is slightly exaggerated for humorous effect by extending it to the entirety of the first claim, when it was in fact made only with regard to a specific instance of the first claim.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor is an expert on falseNot recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rateas 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

I don't know what falseNot is. Was it meant to be two sentences, one of them unfinished?

I, for one, am rather tired of left-leaning people on this board refusing to engage with any particular thread (or rejecting a particular claim on a thread they are engaging in) by simply stating the source is 'biased'. Recently, ZiprHead refused to consider anything published on Quilllette, because he didn't like the claim being made (that there was no epidemic of trans murders). He refused to critique the facts or in any way prove them false. And he also pointed to a 'fact checking website', as if this justified his stance, as if I a neutral third party had any reason to regard the fact checking website as the supreme arbiter of truth and Quillette as a purveyor of only falsehoods.

 

[laughing dog]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

 

[Metaphor]

No, they're not.

The first claim is certainly true.

The second is true in its context, but is slightly exaggerated for humorous effect by extending it to the entirety of the first claim, when it was in fact made only with regard to a specific instance of the first claim.

Both are false.

You have offered no evidence for the claim that no reasonable person could believe what is published by the Daily Mail. In fact, I am certain that the Daily Mail publishes thousands of facts every day that it is entirely reasonable to believe (and therefore a reasonable person should believe them).

The second is also false. You claimed that The Daily Mail said no reasonable person would believe what it publishes. But in fact the Daily Mail said no reasonable person would make one particular interpretation of a headline. This is also true. The proof, bilby, is this. I am sure you regard yourself as a reasonable person, and I am also sure that you did not think for a moment that the Daily Mail was making a claim that white people could not possibly enter or exist in certain towns. I am also certain you think no reasonable person could think that was a reasonable understanding of the headline in question.

 

[Metaphor]

If a mod changes the OP title to “More on the strange death of British journalism” , the title complaints would disappear.

I didn't even complain. I said it was false.

You complain it is false.

I said it was false. If you want to say that's a complaint, that's fair. I regard it as a calling out, not a complaint.

But since you made a point of it, my thread titles - this week in X, the strange death of X, etc - are obvious figurative language and obviously from a particular perspective.

I will have to remember that “figurative language” is an excuse for false titles.

Why would you try to remember that? I did not say figurative language was an "excuse" for false titles.

I am saying no reasonable person could imagine that a title like "the strange death of Europe" referred to some kind of literal death of a biotic organism. There cannot be a falsehood in a figurative title which makes no claims of fact.

 

[bilby]

No, they're not.

The first claim is certainly true.

The second is true in its context, but is slightly exaggerated for humorous effect by extending it to the entirety of the first claim, when it was in fact made only with regard to a specific instance of the first claim.

Both are false.

You have offered no evidence for the claim that no reasonable person could believe what is published by the Daily Mail. In fact, I am certain that the Daily Mail publishes thousands of facts every day that it is entirely reasonable to believe (and therefore a reasonable person should believe them).

The second is also false. You claimed that The Daily Mail said no reasonable person would believe what it publishes. But in fact the Daily Mail said no reasonable person would make one particular interpretation of a headline. This is also true. The proof, bilby, is this. I am sure you regard yourself as a reasonable person, and I am also sure that you did not think for a moment that the Daily Mail was making a claim that white people could not possibly enter or exist in certain towns. I am also certain you think no reasonable person could think that was a reasonable understanding of the headline in question.

Your uneducated guesses backed by your uninformed opinion isn't "proof", even if it really really feels to you that it is.

 

[laughing dog]

Metaphor is an expert on falseNot recalling people using Rachel Maddow as a source of news on this board.Maybe not, but blogs like Truthout and DailyKos have been used as a source a lot. Which is even worse.According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, Truthout and DailyKos both rateas 'Mixed - non-vetted content and a few failed fact check and misleading claims' for 'factual reporting'.

I don't know what falseNot is. Was it meant to be two sentences, one of them unfinished?

I have no idea how that gibberIsh got posted - I abandonned it as hopeless.