Okay, okay, I admit I read the Daily Mail.
Why ? (as per original question)
Because it's reasonably quick and easy to read and I believe it manages to cover a fairly large number of different news stories in reasonable depth, so I feel a 15-20 minute read sets me up with up to date news. I also enjoy the majority, but not all, of its features from a magazine-type perspective. It's good on health, biography, history, book & film reviews.
I don't read it because I slavishly agree with everything it prints and indeed, have often been known to rant about its political articles. I also hate, with a vengeance, its propensity to regularly run articles about "twittering" types who have "bravely" given everything up to go and live the dream somewhere or other unconventional. Without exception, the people featured are always already well-heeled enough to downsize with plenty of equity so of course they can slope off to live the "good life", and giving up nanny is a sacrifice worth making. I hate, hate, hate that blinkered view - ditto regular features on spoilt women who spend several times my income on clothes each year etc.
However, this does not deflect, for me, from the fact that it gives me my news fill in a manageable way. My 2nd tabloid of choice, if the DM's sold out, is, actually, the Daily Mirror, whose politics are far nearer to my own, yet its lack of depth to most stories and appalling style frustrates me (as does the fact I can read it in 5 minutes) as well as its concentration on silly "celebrity".
I simply don't have the time to ever properly read broadsheets. When I have, say, on holiday, I'll get the Independent or Times, but really like to read a paper cover to cover and just can't "dip" into it. If I don't read all of a paper I always feel I've missed out on something. Bottom line for me is that I can read all of the DM in the little spare time I have, I like its news reporting and its "magazine" content.
I like to think I know my own mind and reading the political views of someone else does NOT mean I agree with them. I'm also going to stick my neck out here and say I feel that the perception of the DM as racist is unfair. It has long campaigned for Stephen Lawrence's murderers to be bought to justice and actually named his killers on its front page before anyone else ..... with a "sue us if you dare" attitude. Would a "racist" paper really have gone to these lengths, surely it wouldn't have "bothered" ?
I thought Greensleeves' post was very good.