On sources, especially British newspapers

[KingsGambit]

Background: In a Facebook discussion on the New York Times page over the Belgium euthanasia law, I cited the Daily Mail article Paprika linked to claiming that half of Belgian euthanasia nurses admitted to killing patients without their consent. People started responding by stating that what I posted was not a reliable source. One person mockingly suggested that I link to the National Enquirer (an outlandish supermarket tabloid). I have to admit that I'm not up with all the British newspapers and which are/aren't reliable... can somebody bring me up to speed here?

[Juvenal]

If the "newspaper" features naked wimmin breasts on page 3, it's probably not a good place to turn to for news.

[Darth Executor]

Daily mail isn't any better or worse than any other mainstream news source. They do tend to write a large volume of some of the highest quality click bait trolling in the world though. They also occasionally write on important topics no other corporatist will touch (like the negative effects of mass immigration).

[Darth Executor]

If the "newspaper" features naked wimmin breasts on page 3, it's probably not a good place to turn to for news.

On the contrary, since most news is garbage you might as well get some breasts to go with it.

[Paprika]

I had already known about the issue and just grabbed the first link that appeared when I made my post. However, it would have more appropriate, in retrospect, to track down the paper. You can find the paper referenced here:

Key quote from the abstract:

The response rate was 58.4%. Overall, 208 deaths involving the use of life-ending drugs were reported: 142 (weighted prevalence 2.0%) were with an explicit patient request (euthanasia or assisted suicide) and 66 (weighted prevalence 1.8%) were without an explicit request. Euthanasia and assisted suicide mostly involved patients less than 80 years of age, those with cancer and those dying at home. Use of life-ending drugs without an explicit request mostly involved patients 80 years of older, those with a disease other than cancer and those in hospital. Of the deaths without an explicit request, the decision was not discussed with the patient in 77.9% of cases.

For the 2002 law on euthanasia that explicitly requires a request from a conscious patient (in fact, repeated requests), see here.

The fact that they're attacking the source instead of addressing the point brought up, which is easily verifiable, is rather suggestive.

[KingsGambit]

Thanks, so the article is easily verifiable. Therefore, comparing it to a source that just makes stories up out of thin air is obviously disingenuous.

[Paprika]

Thanks, so the article is easily verifiable. Therefore, comparing it to a source that just makes stories up out of thin air is obviously disingenuous.

It took me less than a minute to google the paper that the article was probably referring too. On the other hand, if the report were false, it wouldn't have been too hard for them to disprove it either.

[Chrs]

The Daily Mail is trash. This should be obvious from the fact that DE thinks it's okay.

[Paprika]

KG: there's another paper that might interest you. Of the 137 euthanasia cases that were sampled 64 were not reported (Table 3) to the review committee, which is required by law. The authors observe that "A large majority of the unreported cases (92.2%) were in fact acts of euthanasia as defined in our study but were not perceived or labelled as “euthanasia” by the physician involved."

[KingsGambit]

The Daily Mail is trash. This should be obvious from the fact that DE thinks it's okay.

Well, using this logic I would have to abandon Christianity...

[seanD]

Background: In a Facebook discussion on the New York Times page over the Belgium euthanasia law, I cited the Daily Mail article Paprika linked to claiming that half of Belgian euthanasia nurses admitted to killing patients without their consent. People started responding by stating that what I posted was not a reliable source. One person mockingly suggested that I link to the National Enquirer (an outlandish supermarket tabloid). I have to admit that I'm not up with all the British newspapers and which are/aren't reliable... can somebody bring me up to speed here?

In some cases, it's more about what sort of verifiable info is in the content than the reputation of the actual paper. For example, if the paper gave a name of the nurse(s) they interviewed or specifically named the hospital they got this information, you're good to go because it would be easily falsifiable if their info was incorrect.

[Carrikature]

Well, using this logic I would have to abandon Christianity...

[KingsGambit]

...and that's not in the cards.

[Psychic Missile]

"The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany." - the Daily Mail's co-founder.

[Epoetker]

Didn't the National Enquirer break the Monica Lewinsky story first?

The Daily Mail is generally competent, employs reporters who take pictures that the Guardian would never, ever, publish unless forced, writes in a sensationalistic but no more propagandist style than any other mainstream newspaper, and is Read By Women.

And it's got a unique style, which is much more than I can say for all those "independent" liberal newspaper weeklies found free in every Starbucks that syndicate the same authors with the same dumb liberal opinions and have about 25-50% of their ad space paid for by strip clubs. In literally every college town.