I remember the good old days, when some elitist guy tried to tell us the FT was a higher quality paper than the Daily Mail.
Just because something is of higher quality that doesn't mean that it is always correct. For example the FT has been wrong over every major issue to do with the EU - the Mail has been correct more often. If you are trying to promote a certain stance then quality tends to go out of the window.
^ prima facie evidence of type of thing I am on about.
Science does get things wrong, it is however far the best and most successful method of determining outcomes. In fact, it is the only way of modeling the world we live in that is consistently better than guessing, more than that, the tests are repeatably consistent.
The more complex and chaotic a system is, the less reliable the modelling is, though any increase in reliability above that of pure chance is considered extremely valuable in for example financial markets.
If your 'system' is better than chance, then it can beat the odds. It takes a lot of money and a lot of bets to make money from it, but in the long run, with large sums to play with, extremely large amounts of money can be made - that is where the overal trends are more significant than short term random variations.
Short term however, natural variances in outcomes, like flipping a coin twice giving 2 heads in a row is much more likely even with a coin that is ever so slightly biased towards tails than if you were to flip it 100 times and see the overal distribution. The larger the number of flips, the smoother the overall distribution and closer to the expected probability.
.... sometimes though, you will flip a coin 10,000 times and even though it's weighted to generally favour tails and you predict it should come out at around a 3:7 heads to tails ration (3000 heads to 7000 tails) it just happens you get a random result that gives a 6:4 result (6000 heads to 4000 tails).
Now imagine that 10,000 coin flip prediction happens during a period of time when someone with an ideologically based 'system' that is no better than guessing over the long term happens to have a random variation that closer matches their guess.
In isolation, completely ignoring random variation and long term results, if you were invested in that ideological system, it would appear as pretty solid evidence that your ideological system is right.
That is classic confirmation bias at play.
It's remembering and counting all the times you guess right and when your opponents guessed wrong, yet failing to and dismissing off hand comparing all the times you guessed wrong and others were right.
It's the same thing that corelates to people who believe in telepathy and the supernatural on the basis of having been thinking about someone and then they rang or knocked at their door.
It fails to account for all the times you do think about someone and they don't call, as you never keep count, you (your brain) highlights patterns where it seems interesting - like when they do happen to coincidentally call at the same time or just after you thought about them.
Because experts in a particular field, News agencies or other organisations either support or appear to support different and especially opposing political or ideological view points, it is when they were wrong that sticks in our minds. When similar agencies support or appear to support our political views, we remember and count when they get it right and completely forget or dismiss when they get it wrong.
Ergo, that's one of the significant reasons why some people swear by homeopathy, dowsing or that the Daily Mail is a better quality newspaper and source of information than the FT or the Guardian 
Putting into words what is felt is good to see. This is a post stripped of the lecturing public persona which is a bit of a facade hiding the true TB.
That is more like it; sweet, and puts the message across.

As your post makes my point.
Elitist assumption of superiority.
In my opinion, the Daily Mail is a superior newspaper over the FT. That you are unhappy with that, or that it somehow offends you doesn't change anything.
I'll ask you one very simple thing. What is the purpose of a newspaper?
It doesn't offend me so much as making my hopes and aspirations for the future of mankind die just a tiny bit more.
/proxy.php?image=https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/46040792/oh-dear-how-sad-nevermind.jpg&hash=b82a26452b5a581b879007bf61a82cf1
Print that out and stick it over your monitor and it will save wasting you tons of time since that's pretty much what the vast majority of people think when they see your latest whinge or whine thread 
That must be why you are so keen to post in them then.
I'm a certified loon, what's your excuse 