What the hell are you talking about? You asked me how someone could look up the claims made in the article, and I told you. A lot of people don’t trust the daily mail, and for good reason.
I never claimed they should, but I am still correct that in this case the article is correct, and he would be ignorant of the issue if he didn’t.
THEN afterwards you can try to verify this.
So again without having read the article, where would you look up that this is an issue?
What was the point of claiming I can look it up directly?
Where would the knowledge come from to get the idea to look it up directly?
Your comment was nonsense, and maybe I was unclear. But your response was still nonsense in the context.
I already addressed that exact point, all tabloid newspapers have sensationalist stories to sell, but they also have stories that are legit to justify their existence.
You simply can’t with ANY paper say that an article is trustworthy or not before reading it and then verify it.
I CLEARLY stated already when the OP post was quite new, that the content of this article is legit, because I’d heard the same news from 2 other trustworthy sources.
Daily Mail is always bashed, no matter how relevant and correct the article is, and it’s tiresome IMO.
Especially when in this case, it’s an issue that suspiciously has NOT been brought up in any other mainstream media.
So you are absolutely the one being adversarial, defending the complete and total dissing of an article that is relevant and good, without regard for who is the journalist, and that the info given is correct, but ONLY based on the fact that the story was brought by the Daily Mail. teaching Daily Mail that it doesn’t help posting good articles that everybody has access to.
And also teaching other media that they don’t need to bring stories that are relevant bu political controversial, because no other media will bring those stories either.
You are undermining the free press, and it is in a very sorry state right now, especially in the USA, where freedom of the press is very limited under threats of the insane anti terror law USA has, administered by an insane government, that claims that negative reporting on the Iran war is treason!
So we need independent news in English that are NOT from the USA.
Maybe the article was a mistake by Daily Mail, because they didn’t consider the consequences of revealing that real estate prices in the middle east are plummeting due to the Iran war.
there are media that are 100% propaganda like RT, (Russia Today) Daily mail is not in that category of bad as far as I can tell.
We need to prevent propaganda from media like RT, and as a minimum point it out when relevant.
But to completely disregard a relevant article because the Daily Mail has a bad reputation is stupid. Because usually when articles from the Daily Mail are posted, they are pretty much in line with other media. So it seems to me those very bad articles, are rarely posted here.
Again: what the hell are you talking about? You’re building a lot of strawmen.
The daily mail is trash, I’m sorry if that offends you. But I didn’t say they never report the truth. All I’ve done is shared a way to verify their claims. I have no idea why you’re so upset by that, unless you think we should take their word for everything they report on, and never verify anything. But that would be kind of unreasonable…
What the hell are you talking about? You asked me how someone could look up the claims made in the article, and I told you. A lot of people don’t trust the daily mail, and for good reason.
I never claimed they should, but I am still correct that in this case the article is correct, and he would be ignorant of the issue if he didn’t.
THEN afterwards you can try to verify this.
So again without having read the article, where would you look up that this is an issue?
What was the point of claiming I can look it up directly?
Where would the knowledge come from to get the idea to look it up directly?
Your comment was nonsense, and maybe I was unclear. But your response was still nonsense in the context.
I don’t know why you’re being so adversarial. The daily mail isn’t trustworthy, that’s not nonsense.
I already addressed that exact point, all tabloid newspapers have sensationalist stories to sell, but they also have stories that are legit to justify their existence.
You simply can’t with ANY paper say that an article is trustworthy or not before reading it and then verify it.
I CLEARLY stated already when the OP post was quite new, that the content of this article is legit, because I’d heard the same news from 2 other trustworthy sources.
Daily Mail is always bashed, no matter how relevant and correct the article is, and it’s tiresome IMO.
Especially when in this case, it’s an issue that suspiciously has NOT been brought up in any other mainstream media.
So you are absolutely the one being adversarial, defending the complete and total dissing of an article that is relevant and good, without regard for who is the journalist, and that the info given is correct, but ONLY based on the fact that the story was brought by the Daily Mail. teaching Daily Mail that it doesn’t help posting good articles that everybody has access to.
And also teaching other media that they don’t need to bring stories that are relevant bu political controversial, because no other media will bring those stories either.
You are undermining the free press, and it is in a very sorry state right now, especially in the USA, where freedom of the press is very limited under threats of the insane anti terror law USA has, administered by an insane government, that claims that negative reporting on the Iran war is treason!
So we need independent news in English that are NOT from the USA.
Maybe the article was a mistake by Daily Mail, because they didn’t consider the consequences of revealing that real estate prices in the middle east are plummeting due to the Iran war.
there are media that are 100% propaganda like RT, (Russia Today) Daily mail is not in that category of bad as far as I can tell.
We need to prevent propaganda from media like RT, and as a minimum point it out when relevant.
But to completely disregard a relevant article because the Daily Mail has a bad reputation is stupid. Because usually when articles from the Daily Mail are posted, they are pretty much in line with other media. So it seems to me those very bad articles, are rarely posted here.
Edit:
This just in as a point in case:
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2026/03/18/journalists-exposing/
Again: what the hell are you talking about? You’re building a lot of strawmen.
The daily mail is trash, I’m sorry if that offends you. But I didn’t say they never report the truth. All I’ve done is shared a way to verify their claims. I have no idea why you’re so upset by that, unless you think we should take their word for everything they report on, and never verify anything. But that would be kind of unreasonable…