Hm, Good question...there's a saying (don't ask me who said it) that 'the biased see bias'. So while some DM writers and readers berate the likes of the Guardian and ITs readers as politically correct, limp-wristed liberal whingers then Guardian-type readers and most MNers (it would appear) deride the DM camp as rabid racists, misogynists and right-wingers. Don't think it's that simple.
I read the DM's online version (I read all the papers' online versions. News junkie. Bad thing. It's all so f**ing depressing) and I can honestly say there are some interesting and reasoned articles on there, (not sure I'd include Peter Hitchens there. He's a bit loopy) as well as some that you roll your eyes at. Same with the Independent, Telegraph etc etc.
What I hate about it, and this is the reason I'd never buy it, is the incessant sniping by female writers at women in the public eye, with closeup (and probably Photoshopped) pictures of thighs and knees and hands and faces, accompanied by sneering headlines along the lines of 'Look at her! She's looking a bit old/fat/thin/gnarly/full of cellulite'.
But I reckon the comments about the anti-Semitism in the 30's and that being a good reason for hating it now are a bit odd. Lord Rothermere was clearly a wholehearted facist, but he was born in 1868! Anti-Semitism was pretty common both before and after the war. Things have moved on, a bit. Following that logic, I presume you agree wholeheartedly with people who still hate the Germans
More recently, it was the DM that named who most held to be responsible for killing Stephen Lawrence, on the front page, and challenged them to sue. They didn't. Is that the action of an irredeemably racist paper? And put it this way, if the readership was as vicious and racist as people claim it to be, I guess we'd have a lot more BNP councillors knocking about..