Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the Daily Mail has gone totally downhill?

97 replies

NameChangeMay2026 · 20/05/2026 20:57

Yes, I know it's always been a right-wing rag, but it used to be a lot more fun and interesting for stories about people I had actually heard of, royals, health stuff, and human-interest stories.

However, these days I find very little I want to click on. The royal coverage is all "Kate, saint who walks on water" and "Meghan, bad witch who should be burned at the stake." I also like Kate better than Meghan, but their coverage is a joke. The sycophancy over Kate is to such a degree that surely it must be written ironically.

I look at the home page and the sidebar, and 90 percent of the people named, I have never heard of.

The health stuff is all warnings about dire conditions that are really rare in the real world. It used to be useful information, but now it's just endless scaremongering. I see the headlines and I just roll my eyes.

The really interesting human-interest stories have gone. Now the stories are all about someone I've never heard of snubbing someone else I've never heard of on social media. Really inconsequential stuff.

My bar for mindless scrolling really isn't high, but the DM has managed to bore me into not really reading it anymore. I used to read many of their articles. Nowadays, i look at the front page still, but less, and don't find much I want to click on. I expect the next stage will be just not ever looking at it.

Also, much of it's behind a paywall with really misleading headlines to get you to sign up. There's no way I'm paying for that trash, so I use an archiving site, but often it doesn't work. And less and less can I be bothered to go through the process anyway.

If you used to enjoy the site, do you also find that it seems to have gone so downhill that it's almost as if they don't want readers anymore?

OP posts:
Poonu · 25/05/2026 14:27

DM is boring now. And Liz Jones what a joke.

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 14:28

The OP’s post perfectly sums up the problems that the media industry has these days. You are not willing to pay for content, then you complain about the quality! Can’t you see the connection? It is worth paying for good quality journalism but most people prefer TikTok. How about subscribing to The Times or Telegraph? I’m sure I’ll be shouted down for the suggestion but you pay your money (or don’t) and take your choice. Obviously there must be a market for the stuff they are pumping out though…

MargaretThursday · 25/05/2026 14:31

Interesting choice of stories mentioned seeing as if you google "Daily Mail Meghan" the results I get are stories that are neutral about her eg top in the search is
Meghan Markle says everyone in her family likes a different one of her jams - and reveals what Harry, 'Lil' and 'Arch's' favourites are | Daily Mail Online

Very similar to if you Google "Daily Mail Kate", you get a neutral story. This is the top one for that search.
Prince William reveals that Princess Charlotte is a Chelsea supporter like her mother Kate - while George has inherited his love of Aston Villa | Daily Mail Online

Neither are condemning nor gushing.

And on the basis that Prince Harry has his rather dodgy court case against the Mail (isn't that due out shortly?) you could forgive the Mail for being a bit unforgiving of their mistakes, couldn't you?

Or is this an attempt to smear the Mail before the result comes so if they lose H&M's PR can say that they're always nasty to them and it isn't fair?

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:01

Jc2001 · 25/05/2026 13:31

Bloody hell you must have a short memory.

Off the top of my head

Gulf war
Bosnia
Kosovo
Genocide in Rwanda
Chechnya

The news cycle didn't seem overwhelming in the Nineties though, as we didn't have the internet, social media, and 24-hour news. Most people watched the news once a day and perhaps also had a morning newspaper. These days, it feels like a 24/7 bombardment.

OP posts:
TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:02

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 13:27

Omg seriously. Or maybe they read it in working men's pubs where everyone else is reading it too!

Seems like you read it though? You seem quite familiar with the articles.

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:02

Thetreesaregreeninspring · 25/05/2026 14:14

The paper that supported Hitler has gone downhill?

Britain in the 1930s had a policy of appeasing Hitler under the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The papers followed that party line, in an attempt to avoid being dragged into the conflict.

OP posts:
NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:03

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:02

Seems like you read it though? You seem quite familiar with the articles.

Yes, but the online version. In private. 🤣

OP posts:
NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:04

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 14:28

The OP’s post perfectly sums up the problems that the media industry has these days. You are not willing to pay for content, then you complain about the quality! Can’t you see the connection? It is worth paying for good quality journalism but most people prefer TikTok. How about subscribing to The Times or Telegraph? I’m sure I’ll be shouted down for the suggestion but you pay your money (or don’t) and take your choice. Obviously there must be a market for the stuff they are pumping out though…

But if you pay for the DM, you get the same rubbish content. It's not like tons of good stuff is hidden behind the paywall.

OP posts:
Boomer55 · 25/05/2026 15:06

NameChangeMay2026 · 20/05/2026 20:57

Yes, I know it's always been a right-wing rag, but it used to be a lot more fun and interesting for stories about people I had actually heard of, royals, health stuff, and human-interest stories.

However, these days I find very little I want to click on. The royal coverage is all "Kate, saint who walks on water" and "Meghan, bad witch who should be burned at the stake." I also like Kate better than Meghan, but their coverage is a joke. The sycophancy over Kate is to such a degree that surely it must be written ironically.

I look at the home page and the sidebar, and 90 percent of the people named, I have never heard of.

The health stuff is all warnings about dire conditions that are really rare in the real world. It used to be useful information, but now it's just endless scaremongering. I see the headlines and I just roll my eyes.

The really interesting human-interest stories have gone. Now the stories are all about someone I've never heard of snubbing someone else I've never heard of on social media. Really inconsequential stuff.

My bar for mindless scrolling really isn't high, but the DM has managed to bore me into not really reading it anymore. I used to read many of their articles. Nowadays, i look at the front page still, but less, and don't find much I want to click on. I expect the next stage will be just not ever looking at it.

Also, much of it's behind a paywall with really misleading headlines to get you to sign up. There's no way I'm paying for that trash, so I use an archiving site, but often it doesn't work. And less and less can I be bothered to go through the process anyway.

If you used to enjoy the site, do you also find that it seems to have gone so downhill that it's almost as if they don't want readers anymore?

Well, all newspapers have their own preferences and agendas.

Yes, the DM is laughable at times.

But, the Guardian (different agenda) is totally laughable most of the time. .

I guess most people try to read real, accurate news and avoid both. 🤷‍♀️

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:06

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:01

The news cycle didn't seem overwhelming in the Nineties though, as we didn't have the internet, social media, and 24-hour news. Most people watched the news once a day and perhaps also had a morning newspaper. These days, it feels like a 24/7 bombardment.

You don’t have to read it though. Yes, Trump’s non-stop posting on his own social media has certainly speeded up the news cycle. There is a lot more important stuff going on than the trivia like Kate or Meghan’s latest antics but this seems to interest you most?

Personally, I like to stay informed, using a range of outlets. Better to know what’s going on that wake up one morning with Spetznaz on the lawn.

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:07

EasilyPleased · 25/05/2026 14:15

Yeah. Apparently the quality of its muckraking has declined from that spectacularly low bar.

As I said, the paper reflected Britain's Hitler-appeasement policy of the 1930s, under Chamberlain.

OP posts:
TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:09

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:04

But if you pay for the DM, you get the same rubbish content. It's not like tons of good stuff is hidden behind the paywall.

So why read it? You must still find it interesting? There are a range of news outlets just like you can either shop at Fortnum’s or at Iceland. You have a choice and nobody is making you do it.

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:09

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:06

You don’t have to read it though. Yes, Trump’s non-stop posting on his own social media has certainly speeded up the news cycle. There is a lot more important stuff going on than the trivia like Kate or Meghan’s latest antics but this seems to interest you most?

Personally, I like to stay informed, using a range of outlets. Better to know what’s going on that wake up one morning with Spetznaz on the lawn.

But you see it when looking up other things. For example, if I want to look up the weather forecast in my area, there'll be news pop-ups etc. on the page. Or if I want to look at the RSPB's lovely Instagram account, featuring lots of bird info., I'll get similar. You can't look at anything on the web without seeing a bunch of other stuff.

OP posts:
NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:10

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:09

So why read it? You must still find it interesting? There are a range of news outlets just like you can either shop at Fortnum’s or at Iceland. You have a choice and nobody is making you do it.

My point is that I don't find much to read on there these days, when I look at the home page, which is less and less often.

OP posts:
TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:13

Well the ads usually reflect and magnify the things you are interested in. If you are interested in retiring you get ads for investment funds, if you have browsed Boden you keep getting ads for the same dress, if you are interested in the Mail you get…the Mail! The Met Office has a detailed weather site without ads or you can just look at the weather app on your phone. I don’t believe you can’t avoid it!

TheOutlier · 25/05/2026 15:14

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:10

My point is that I don't find much to read on there these days, when I look at the home page, which is less and less often.

Maybe time to shop around then?

Thetreesaregreeninspring · 25/05/2026 19:41

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:02

Britain in the 1930s had a policy of appeasing Hitler under the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. The papers followed that party line, in an attempt to avoid being dragged into the conflict.

Nope, you’re pretty much wrong there. Like today papers expressed different opinions the Daily Herald and the Manchester Guardian opposed Hitler. Even the Express was more isolationist than openly supportive of Hitler.

But you enjoy the paper that supported Hitler and use flimsy excuses to cover up your shame. Any good gossip in DM today?

Mischance · 25/05/2026 19:43

Downhill? ... impossible!

Thetreesaregreeninspring · 25/05/2026 19:44

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:07

As I said, the paper reflected Britain's Hitler-appeasement policy of the 1930s, under Chamberlain.

Again, nope. The DM was actively pro Hitler, rather than pro appeasement. It actively dismissed criticism of Hitler and the Nazis.

Blundl · 25/05/2026 20:17

NameChangeMay2026 · 25/05/2026 15:04

But if you pay for the DM, you get the same rubbish content. It's not like tons of good stuff is hidden behind the paywall.

Why would you pay, just sign up to the free PressReader and read the papers on there.

DancingFerret · 25/05/2026 20:39

Blundl · 25/05/2026 20:17

Why would you pay, just sign up to the free PressReader and read the papers on there.

I couldn't see a free option on the Pressreader site, only a 7-day free trial.

overunderover · 25/05/2026 21:16

Downhill? Yeah, it was so much better when they supported Franco.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page