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

[bilby]

...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”

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.

 

[barbos]

Did the lawyers literally say what tittle says?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Did the lawyers literally say what tittle says?

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’”.

 

[barbos]

Did the lawyers literally say what tittle says?

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’”.

So nobody there said "No reasonable person could possibly believe the nonsense published by the Mail Online and Daily Mail"
And bilby was merely exaggerating out of proportion what was said, trying to create an impression that lawyers were saying that everything these sites say was nonsense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Did the lawyers literally say what tittle says?

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’”.

So nobody there said "No reasonable person could possibly believe the nonsense published by the Mail Online and Daily Mail"
And bilby was merely exaggerating out of proportion what was said, trying to create an impression that lawyers were saying that everything these sites say was nonsense.

No, i think his summary, as it wasn't in quotes, is pretty spot-on. Their defense is not that only SOME rational people would read the story and come to that conclusion (no more thsn 5% your honor!). Down that path lies a recognition that they are legally responsible for anyone coming to an understanding that matches their headline.

And they did not cite anything special about this headline.
Nothing like FOX saying, "Tucker's bullshit is obvious, not to mean the rest is." So, why not think tjis applies to it all?

 

[barbos]

Mail Online exaggerates and so did bilby in his tittle.

 

[Patooka]

I just came back from Chrissy Lunch but I am certain, willing enough to bet money certain, that TSwizzle will never contribute to this thread.

 

[thebeave]

Did the lawyers literally say what tittle says?

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’”.

So nobody there said "No reasonable person could possibly believe the nonsense published by the Mail Online and Daily Mail"
And bilby was merely exaggerating out of proportion what was said, trying to create an impression that lawyers were saying that everything these sites say was nonsense.

No, i think his summary, as it wasn't in quotes, is pretty spot-on. Their defense is not that only SOME rational people would read the story and come to that conclusion (no more thsn 5% your honor!). Down that path lies a recognition that they are legally responsible for anyone coming to an understanding that matches their headline.

And they did not cite anything special about this headline.
Nothing like FOX saying, "Tucker's bullshit is obvious, not to mean the rest is." So, why not think tjis applies to it all?

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.

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts

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:

What makes this particularly notable and ironic is that a similar argument was made a year later by lawyers for Fox News when defending a segment that appeared on the program of its highest-rated program, Tucker Carlson Tonight. That was part of a lawsuit brought by the former model Karen McDougal, who claimed Carlson slandered her by saying she “extorted” former President Trump by demanding payments in exchange for her silence about an extramarital affair she claimed to have with him.

 

[Swammerdami]

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.

 

[barbos]

title-tittle, potato-tomato.

 

[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.

 

[Bomb#20]

...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”

Ah, IPSO, the Information Piety Society of Orthodoxy. Didn't know the Catholic Church was still in the business of conducting hearings against people for publishing stuff...

 

[Rhea]

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.

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[Coleman Smith]

I don't know anything about British law but I wonder why it is not liable to publish false information that unreasonable people may believe and act on.

How does one establish a legal standard for "reasonable".

What legal tests and precedents can be applied?

 

[Shadowy Man]

How does one establish a legal standard for "reasonable".

Isn’t that what juries are supposed to be for? It’s established on a case by case basis. Literally.

 

[bilby]

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.

'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.

 

[Coleman Smith]

How does one establish a legal standard for "reasonable".

Isn’t that what juries are supposed to be for? It’s established on a case by case basis. Literally.

I agree.

One hopes that you get a reasonable jury.

 

[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?

 

[Swammerdami]

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?