Talk:Daily Mail

I wonder if the Wikipedia judgement of the Daily Mail should so plainly apply here (?). They often went against the tide, publishing contrarian (more real) view imo, and thus have angered the establishment. A change in wording might be good. -- Sunvalley (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The dozens of lawsuits would beg to differ. Like their stories? Just post the contrarian views then. Jun (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

They do publish made up stories, but they are certainly not exceptional in that regard. Are the the victim of an unusual number of lawsuits? That might indicate untruthfulness, or it might indicate the opposite... I suggest cite them, and let readers draw their own conclusions. All the commercially-controlled media post helpful stuff occasionally. It is somewhat unexpected that we repeat Wikipedia's verdict here, as if that were a good guide to telling truth and lies. So in summary, feel free to modify the lede if you feel you can improve it. -- Robin (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)