Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail as a source for being 'unreliable'

[NotAllThere]

... the DM just makes stuff up or says "some people claim..."

Well it's true, because the DM journalist who wrote is a person, and he or she is claiming it.

[northernladyuk]

It's their comments section for people who read the Guardian... expecting an open forum is naive!

I regularly troll the Guardian BTL, and they are ready to wield the post delet button, but not the banhammer. I wonder what the OP did?

[Mordac]

The difference is that The Guardian and other serious news papers do fact checking before publishing anything, they will give their own spin to the stories left or right wing, but the event they are reporting on was real, as long as you realise that, you can make up your own mind.
The DM comes up with totally made up stories and simpleton derelict coastal town UKIP voters take that as the full truth..

There used to be a website called "FactCheckingPolly" or something similar, specifically for the purpose of tearing Ms Toynbee's column apart.
To be fair to the Graun, they do publish a daily list of "Corrections & Clarifications", where they do list the bits they got wrong. Today's for example, apologises for saying the Royal Marines are part of the Army (it's the Navy), and that they got some NHS stats wrong (they were overly pessimistic, natch).

[woohoo]

I regularly troll the Guardian BTL, and they are ready to wield the post delet button, but not the banhammer. I wonder what the OP did?

Disagreed with an article and got a load of likes, it was deleted then I was banned, well still able to log in but not make comments. I emailed them asking why I was banned and they said they would investigate but nothing back. I quoted back to them their terms and conditions for banning and asked which one I broke but nothing.

Signed up again while later, made comments for a while but then disagreed and was banned.

I tend to read the ny times now, best of the lot.