The round-up, the Daily Mail and fake news
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
9th February 2017, 20:43 at 8:43 pmKeymaster
Amid the growing clamour over ‘fake news’ I read today that Wikipedia editors have ruled the Daily Mail should not be considered of reliable information. The full discussion can be read here – it contains several example of the Mail admitting to have created fake news:
The Mail doesn’t do a great deal of motor racing reportage, what it does is limited to F1 and most of that is focused on Lewis Hamilton. Consequently it’s not something I refer to very often for the round-up – a quick search throws up just one reference from the past month.
So, should F1 Fanatic take the ‘Wikipedia line’ on the Daily Mail and ignore it completely? Or are Wikipedia’s concerns more a reflection on the Mail’s specific political agenda which has no bearing on its sports coverage? And are there other publications we should be having this conversation about?
As always I’m keen to get your views.
10th February 2017, 0:51 at 12:51 amParticipant
I absolutely loathe the Daily Mail and fully agree with Wikipedia’s stance — but I personally have no problem with it being on the round-up. The sources are very clearly cited (which isn’t always the case on Wikipedia), and it’s not like F1 Fanatic is asserting what appears in the round-up as fact. Most of us know what sources we should treat with caution, anyway. Most of all, I just find it interesting to see what the mainstream media talk about when they talk about F1, even if it is nonsense.
10th February 2017, 2:50 at 2:50 amParticipant
The disconcerting truth is that there are many respected news outlets that do fabricated, fickle articles and click bait articles that exercise their opinion above factual information, often focusing in opinion rather than actual verified trusted content. F1 is so secretive that sensational stories and rumours are hard to tell apart, it’s entertaining nonetheless. Journalists do like to play hero, superstar or genius, although I think often these fake or copy paste news are the result of media companies relying on computer generated articles rather than actual living journalists. They’ve got the voice and so influence the world with it. I wouldn’t censor daily mail I just suggest not following the media unthinkingly.
10th February 2017, 11:14 at 11:14 amParticipant
I believe that only trusted sources should be used for news, and unfortunately the Daily Mail is not one of them in my books. That’s a view I have had before this happened. There are plenty of other major outlets which I take news from with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn’t completely ignore the Daily Mail though. If they produce a genuinely decent opinion piece which is worth sticking in the round-up, then I don’t see why it shouldn’t be added.
10th February 2017, 12:55 at 12:55 pmParticipant
I’m OK with taking the Daily Mail on an item-by-item basis. Information literacy is more helpful to understanding the world than blanket bans, and even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Wikipedia has to marshal a huge number of contributors’ offerings, so it can’t really use a “some are OK, some not” stance because the subtlety would inevitably be lost. F1 Fanatic does not have this problem. The Wikipedia note is a reminder to treat sources with caution, even if professionals are writing the piece, but F1 Fanatic is in a better position to sort the wheat from the chaff in its specialised niche.
10th February 2017, 17:25 at 5:25 pmParticipant
The Daily Mail does occasionally have some decent essays between the horn blowing on the front and highly generic rear of the paper. However, their F1 reporter is a complete ass and if I never had to read anything by him again I’d be perfectly content.
22nd February 2017, 7:16 at 7:16 amParticipant
It is very interesting that Wikipedia have taken this step. I have to agree with @jackysteeg, I don’t mind seeing The Mail appear in the round up as you only provide us with a list of topical articles that appeared the previous day, making no judgment on thei content of the articles.
While I loath The Mail generally I think their F1 coverage is a tiny step up from their usual standards. My issue with their stuff is usually that it is either too focussed on Hamilton (as you mentioned) or is a few days out of date. I also don’t like the tone their reporter uses when he asks questions in the official F1 press conferences (can’t remember the guy’s name at the moment), he is far too confrontational and always tries to make mountains out of mole hills (surprise surprise)
17th July 2017, 9:33 at 9:33 amParticipant
I think their F1 stuff is generally on a par with, or slightly above, other newspapers. I think most of the dislike for the Mail specifically is due to people disagreeing with the political positions it holds… which doesn’t affect its F1 content in the slightest.
All newspapers print crap, rumours, non-neutral content and so on. Even so-called ‘fake news’ – I won’t name names, but a former commercial rights holder had a person he used to push out misleading crap/misdirecting ‘news’ on a regular basis, and as far as I’m aware he was never published in the Daily Mail.
I say keep using it the same way all newspapers are used – which seems to be, ‘specialist publications are best, but newspapers will do as filler’.
19th July 2017, 14:30 at 2:30 pmParticipant
You have run this site for a long time and done a great job, so I think follow your expertise/gut instinct and if you think the article is of interest to us and accurate on face value include it in the round-up. If not and it may be click-bait, ditch it and go to the next one.
I think most of us are time poor so prefer quality over quantity, I subscribed to Joe Salward’s GP+ this year and as great as it is I struggle to find time to read it each race.
So put on what you like IMHO, if people dont like it they dont need to click and read it!
Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.