- Report: #995067
Complaint Review: Associated Newspapers Ltd - London W8 5TT England Internet
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Associated Newspapers Ltd
Northcliffe House s Derry St London W8 5TT England, W8 5TT Internet, United Kingdom
Phone:
Web:
www.dailymail.co.uk
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Associated Newspapers Ltd MailOnline, Sunday Mail, Daily Mail, Daily Mail Online Plagiarism, Bias, Unfair Business Practices, Sensationalism, United Kingdom Internet
Daily Mail aka http://dailymail.co.uk is an online newspaper that is arguably the most popular online "news/gossip" paper on the internet. They belong to the Associated Newspapers Ltd.
I allege that the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mail regularly use storied run by other new agencies, particularly TMZ but many others. They re-print these, often without giving credit to the source paper or source. Their controversial articles are often written by 'MAIL STAFF' rather than an individual to protect any fall-out from their often controversial reporting. The standard of reporting is at best poor and appeals to a lower class of reader.
They routinely discard laws of other countries of whom they report on, for example Australian and American news laws, yet abide strictly by UK laws, often blurring faces that are otherwise available on the internet to protect criminals and disallowing "readers comments" on such articles. They also routinely use arbitrary and prejudicial decisions to discontinue readers comments and disbar certain people who comment on their site when the person(s) repeatedly comment in a way that goes against the "majority opinion". (For example someone sticking up for a certain political cause or political ideology will often be banned based solely on other readers complaints not in substance whilst blatantly racist or bigoted comments are left standing with no recourse).
Daily Mail is practising unfair and deceptive business practises and ought to be investigated by OfCom, the UK investigatory body of media, since they often seem to be promoting certain personalities not relevant to their readership for what seems to be monetary gain. (Excessive coverage of the Kardashians who are/were relative unknowns in the United Kingdom but who enjoy as many as 5 articles per day in publication online).
The paper is unethical in that it is also biased in its political coverage and does not hide its very clear support and opinions when writing stories or rather using stories written elsewhere.
I allege that the Daily Mail and the Sunday Mail regularly use storied run by other new agencies, particularly TMZ but many others. They re-print these, often without giving credit to the source paper or source. Their controversial articles are often written by 'MAIL STAFF' rather than an individual to protect any fall-out from their often controversial reporting. The standard of reporting is at best poor and appeals to a lower class of reader.
They routinely discard laws of other countries of whom they report on, for example Australian and American news laws, yet abide strictly by UK laws, often blurring faces that are otherwise available on the internet to protect criminals and disallowing "readers comments" on such articles. They also routinely use arbitrary and prejudicial decisions to discontinue readers comments and disbar certain people who comment on their site when the person(s) repeatedly comment in a way that goes against the "majority opinion". (For example someone sticking up for a certain political cause or political ideology will often be banned based solely on other readers complaints not in substance whilst blatantly racist or bigoted comments are left standing with no recourse).
Daily Mail is practising unfair and deceptive business practises and ought to be investigated by OfCom, the UK investigatory body of media, since they often seem to be promoting certain personalities not relevant to their readership for what seems to be monetary gain. (Excessive coverage of the Kardashians who are/were relative unknowns in the United Kingdom but who enjoy as many as 5 articles per day in publication online).
The paper is unethical in that it is also biased in its political coverage and does not hide its very clear support and opinions when writing stories or rather using stories written elsewhere.
