to think there are actually an awful lot of daily mail readers on mn?

[wannaBe]

Most articles I see linked to on here seem to be from the Daily mail.

Many come with the statement "sorry it's the DM."

Now while it's entirely possible to happen upon an article if someone emails it to you or you see it on twitter or the like, generally, you don't just happen upon the daily mail, or any other publication for that matter, unless you go looking for it.

And generally, if one was that anti the Daily Mail and what it stands for, then they would actively avoid it, not give it more hits by republishing its articles..

Have no issue if people want to read the Daily Mail, that's their perogative. But why not just come out and admit it rather than pretending to apologise for the fact?

I think people know it can be bigoted, so they pretend they have just accidentally come across these articles.

I read the Times. I don't agree with everything in it, but there you go.

nah, I just see them on FB.

I read the DM online as I find it the easiest newspaper website to navigate. I take it with a large pinch of salt and have a bit of a laugh when people are getting all irate in the comments.

Most seem to admit to reading online for the 'slebs gossip only...

I say, read EVERYTHING, and make your own mind up

I love DM online, it's free and very unintentionally funny.

'And generally, if one was that anti the Daily Mail and what it stands for, then they would actively avoid it, not give it more hits by republishing its articles..'

Not necessarily. I don't particularly like the DM because of its sneery attitude, but I still read it so I can chortle at the readers' comments. Although that makes me just as snide and sneery I guess.

I read the DM and am on here.
wanna make something of it?

I read it online too aniseeda - normally read all the celebrity gossip!!

I have a feeling a lot of people read a story or hear it on the news and become slightly outraged about it so decide to start a thread.

The trouble is when they start that thread, the 'normal' story often doesn't match their outrage....so they link to the most sensationalised version known to mankind and that's usually the Daily Wail

what aniseeda said. I read the dm, no apologies. Don't most papers slant stories to fit their own agenda?

I've been a loyal DM reader for about 20 years. I love the online version though, purely for the comments :)

the Daily Mail isn't a newspaper. Just to make that clear!

I had never read the DM until I joined MN.

Now, whenever I am linked to it, I scan that column to the right for juicy, ill-reported, sensational non-stories so I can judge the paper and its readers.

And yes, I do see the irony.

It's an amusing comic, I'll give it that.

If you are on other forums the DM is very easy to come across! It's linked everywhere.

You have to use dm online. The comments are fucking brilliant!!

Like most on here I think I read online but wouldn't buy the paper. The other news sites need to up their game.

I like to read it for the articles about US celebrities I have never heard of. It passes the time at work, and as a website it is pretty good, even if the veracity of the content can be questionable.

I think it is the best newspaper by far.

Certainly a lot of referrals to DM frothing stories. Given that politicians are scared of the DM I can see why they may be scared of MN :)

It's because the DM has excellent search engine optimisation, so that when you do a search for a news story, it tend to come up first.

I sometimes read the DM sometimes the Guardian, dont agree with all the articles in either. The DM online is a good website hence why it is so popular. Some of the articles in the DM are sneery but so are some people's views on the DM and it's readers.

I like the crossword! I can complete it! I can't do the one in the times.
I also like Tuesday's health section. I don't think it is that much worse than other papers and has the highest circulation. They are all propaganda to some degree.

YABU. It's perfectly possible (and frequent, IMO) to stumble upon a Daily Mail article that happens to provoke interest. Hm, does that make me a "Daily Mail reader"? Or do I have to conform to all the stereotypes of "Daily Mail readers" to be one?

If you aren't a "Daily Mail reader" are you automatically "that anti the Daily Mail and what it stands for"? Or are you perhaps just aware it isn't the best reporting in the world but still find it readable, and often amusing?

YANBU at all

I don't post links from sites that I do not read.

It is logically impossible to post a link to a site if you have not read it.

It is slightly possible that someone else read it and showed it to you and then you linked it, but in that case a lot of MNers have Mail-reading friends.

There are an awful lot of Jeremy Kyle watchers too and some people have even less savoury habits...