Who on earth actually pays to read a Daily Mail article?

[Cardboardcutout78]

Will any brave person on here actually admit to accessing one of their articles that’s behind a pay wall?

I mean, it baffles me how they expect to generate income this way.

Way, way back in the day, the DM used to have the odd article that vaguely resembled news.

And good photographs.

But now the content seems to consist mainly of non-news stories about morning tv show presenters and other pointless celebrities.

Still as misogynistic and unpleasant as ever of course.

I’ll be honest and say I had an occasional guilty look at the DM headlines about six or seven years ago when I worked in communications but rarely clicked on articles.

But now, not only can I not imagine anyone clicking on articles of such poor content, I cannot for the life of me comprehend anyone being willing to pay for the “privilege”?

.

Also, if you have an iPhone you can just click ‘show reader’ and read it for free 🤷

I won't even accept the thousands of cookies it wants to install. No need for that many man.

Oh 😮

Well that explains a lot!

I’m old. And had no idea.

What’s the point of the pay wall banners on articles then?

I'm guilty of looking at the daily mail, but that doesn't work for me on my phone. Not a chance I'd pay for it though. I like to notice the spelling mistakes.

When it was free I used to read the magazine type articles on the DM website, never the news. I don't read anything there any more because it's not worth paying for and I don't want their cookies. I wonder how their new business model is working out for them.

Yes. Best avoided.

But I am genuinely interested in their target audience now?

For example, I know the newspaper and the on-line site are separate entities, but back in the day it would be the sort of newspaper my grandparents would have browsed through lightly on holiday. But if they were alive today they would be repulsed by it I think.

Looking at the DM in a purely professional objective sense, they are quick at getting out major headlines and they still have some good photography.

But as for the content, they seem to my amateur eye, to have aimed so low that they have alienated what used to be their readership?

Or I am underestimating the appetite for puerile racist and sexist crap out there?

No disrespect to any journalists reading this. I used to work in an aligned field and everyone has to pay the mortgage.

Yes. I’m interested to know that too.

Maybe they thought by aiming low, it would increase their leadership? And it’s done the opposite?

I’d like to think that. But I suspect it’s more about the huge resources required to run any global “news” website and the complex management of such a site.

you can read it for free using a VPN in USA

You really think anyone on MN would dare to admit reading the DM?
They secretly read it in bed.
Under the covers.
With a torch.
😉😁😁.

😂😂

Ach thought I'd take a punt!

My mum religiously reads the daily mail every day. It’s her bible and she quotes me nonsense utter shite that she reads as if every word is fact. It disgusts me and has caused some arguments in the past. I am not an argumentative person at all .

Out of interest which are the best (acceptable) online newspapers to read? Would be nice to know which will make me a decent citizen instead of scum.

They were certainly aiming low. I don't miss the mentions of "ample assets" or "peachy posterior" that used to appear down the right of the pages.