A leading doctor who threw a backyard party for his sister’s birthday in Queens claims their group was ‘hosed’ with water by a ‘racist’ white neighbor during a noise dispute, according to a lawsuit.

        • stopthatgirl7OP
          0•1 year ago

          Nice glossing over the important part. Are you gonna delete that comment, too, when you start getting heat?

            • @[email protected]English
              -1•1 year ago

              It’s possible you have your own bias in play. You can enter them in this link from the politics community to check reliability and leanings:

              https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/

              Daily Mail is generally considered moderate to more reliable, accumulatively reporting in the middle between right and left. It’s not the best, but it’s hardly what you’re making it out to be.

              • 520
                9•1 year ago

                Daily Mail is generally considered moderate to more reliable, accumulatively reporting in the middle between right and left. It’s not the best, but it’s hardly what you’re making it out to be.

                Bullshit. The Daily Mail is considered no better than Fox News in the UK. Wikipedia bans it as a source for a reason.

                https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/

                • @[email protected]English
                  0•1 year ago

                  Yes, that was in 2017 for a variety of reasons, and since then they’ve tried to straighten it up a bit, and have gotten awards and accolades from the British Press etc.

                  So they’re not entirely terrible now. I despise Fox News so I should despise the Daily Mail, but recently I haven’t read stories like these from them that raise any issues. But then again when I’m looking for information on important things, I’m not going to them either.

                  edit: and it’s entirely possible that my viewpoint is slanted as a US reader who mainly recognizes bullshit in US-related stories, where they may default to just reporting what they’re told or have read about a thing and don’t bother to twist it much. That could be true.

              • stopthatgirl7OP
                2•1 year ago

                Thing is, they accomplished precisely what they were really after. Now all the comments are about the validity of the source, not the fact that someone took a hose to their Black and brown neighbors having a party.

                • @[email protected]English
                  2•1 year ago

                  And storming into someone’s house uninvited with a dog in such a way that folks were concerned for their safety. No hate for the dog here, but still.

                  My favorite part here is that you provided a second source that seems to be more acceptable as a “non-shit source” to the first guy, only for the next guy to question the new source based solely on its name, and doesn’t bother to check anywhere for how many awards they’ve gotten.

                  • stopthatgirl7OP
                    2•1 year ago

                    Folks like this aren’t actually after “non-shit” or “more reputable” sources. They’re after a reason to summarily dismiss the story being brought up. I dare say no source would be good enough.

      • The Pantser
        -7•1 year ago

        Wtf is a daily beast? That sounds sketchier than the daily mail. Got any reputable sources?