Dan Murphy, the so called journalist who hangs out at Wikipediocracy.....
Der Spiegel, a respected publication that tries to get it right, discovers it may have a serial fabricator on its hands, in much the same style of Janet Cooke at the Washington Post long ago. It immediately suspends the reporter and begins an investigation, ending in the termination of the reporter, a retraction of his articles, and an extensive, public review of the editorial failings that enabled the hoaxster.
the fact that Der Spiegel is mired in a scandal over something that at The Mail or The Sun would be merely treated as "Tuesday" tells us something
He of course doesn't have any examples to hand of the source of the controversy currently unfolding at Der Spiegel being a normal occurrence at the Mail.
What pieces of shit like this never seem to remember, is that in Britain, when a real scandal hits a newspaper, one that involves the sort of fabrication being seen at Der Speigel, there is more than just a controversy and an internal inquiry. When the Sun made shit up about Hillsborough, it produced a 20 year fight for justice, culminating in criminal prosecutions. When the News of the World hacked a dead girl's phone, the paper got shut down and the entire system of press regulation was changed. When the Mirror fabricated an image of British soldiers, editor piers Morgan lost his job and had to move to America to escape the shame.
These were all proper scandals, things the average man or women in the street remembers long after the event, and which presumably factors into their purchasing choices (and in the NOTW's case, advertiser's choices). Not for the nothing are the Sun, Mirror and latterly the NOTW, considered "rags" populated by "hacks", whose content is routinely assumed to be suspect and if little news value, but is nonetheless still widely read because many people are stupid, and even more are not, they just like to read this stuff, whether it is true or not. Much like people still read Wikipedia, even though a large proportion know
it is potentially made up.
If the Mail is so bad, if they are on the same level as the so called "red tops", if reader's expectations of their content is the same, if this shit is just "Tuesday" in their case, then why am I struggling to think of a single similar controversy involving them? Why is it the people alleging it "regularly makes shit up" keep having to refer to the same single blog written by a disgruntled employee? Is that what constitutes a national scandal to these retards? Or is there a giant coverup? Or is the implication we all know it happens, but we all just accept it?
People need to wake up and smell the shit that is being shovelled. If the only supposed national scandal involving the Mail surrounds what they did in the 1930s, as viewed with the benefit of much hindsight, then maybe you don't have shit
? Maybe you are desperate to find anything to use as a reason to discredit them?
When one of the biggest critical paragraphs in Wikipedia's own article on the Mail is their own pathetic ban, when even the Wikipedia article on the paper doesn't list a single controversy that remotely rises to the level of those mentioned above, or this Der Spiegel incident, then maybe, just maybe, these people are letting their political bias and other pet hobby horses colour their judgement of the Mail's actual reputation out there in the real world........
If the charge is that the Mail routinely fabricates stories
, if your complaint is a little stronger than 'wah, wah, I didn't like it when they said this', then let's see the evidence.........
If you have no evidence, or it is pathetically unconvincing, then by all means, make whatever claim you like. Hopefully one day, you will be held to account for it. Hopefully once the world has moved on from this idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedians are capable of integrity.