When looking at the ban imposed on the Daily Mail by Wikipedia, one of the questions that comes to mind is why the online encyclopaedia still allows references to Russia Today and Fox News with their clear bias. However the move seems to be more justified with the two fake news stories by David Rose in consecutive editions of the Mail on Sunday. One of these stories was 'alleging scandalous behaviour' being displayed by NOAA scientists in terms of global temperature data. Although the data results are indisputable as proven by other professionals, Rose still deemed it fit to make the claim that 'world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.' With all the criticism he received with a story like this coming left, right and centre, the journalist still maintained his views, even doubling down on them. With this comparisons have actually drew between Rose and Donald Trump for this blatant spreading of misinformation taking place. Even prior to that story though, Rose had still been publishing stories of a quite uninformed nature. In 2013, he published a story saying that 'because there was more sea in the Arctic that summer than the previous year, this was somehow indicative of "global COOLING!"' However it's clear that this simply couldn't have been the case since in less than four 4 decades, around 3/4s of the summer Arctic sea has disappeared. A year after this, he would completely dismiss the ice in the Arctic and instead speak on Antarctic which funnily enough, is the only reason that it's the only ice that has bucked the trend of the rest of the Earth. Propaganda is what Rose's stories end up being referred to as, with stories of this nature keeping in line with the bias of the journalists - undermining climate policies from the 'green cons.'
This article really does seem to justify the Wikipedia's ban of the Daily Mail. Stories that can come from it can be uninformed, biased and with a clear agenda in mind. Even with the criticism that stories and their journalists receive though, there'll always be people that agree with them and this is representative of the propagandistic nature of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment