I have a love-hate relationship with The Daily Mail. I love it because it breaks stories before all other media. Time and again, for years, I have seen it have info first, then a day or two later the others come around with it. But I hate it because it sacrifices credibility in order to do this. It is very sloppy with facts, including quotes, which are supposed to be the exact words the source said. I know that they massage quotes because even in this most recent story one of the sources is talking the way people do in England, not the way people do in the United States. (Americans don't say "go to hospital." Americans say "go to the hospital.)
I've been pondering how they broke this story, and I think that they got one of the former teammates to talk. You will notice in the Daily Mail article that Liberty University and the police department do not go on the record supporting the story of the rape investigation involving Matthew. So The Daily Mail is going with the story based on what the teammates said. The question then becomes: How did the Daily Mail get the former teammates to talk? Do they offer these people money? The nontabloid mainstream media in this country do not pay people for quotes because they consider that unethical.
So I like reading the breaking news, but I don't like how I think they obtain it. And I don't like how they revise quotes and how their stories are poorly edited. That's why they are known as The Daily Fail.