I was speaking to a friend and I asserted that the Daily Mail had taken some rather extreme (right wing) stances on one subject or another. He disagreed.
Can you suggest examples (preferably with links) of supporting or denying evidence?
Conservapedia (I know… ) did brand it as “the second biggest selling British tabloid newspaper. It supports the Conservative Party. It is right-wing in its editorial stances”.
No cite for that as they do not deserve it.
Rationalwiki has a biased view against it, but they have the cites to show how right wing and how wrong they can get:
One notorious subject that right wingers usually swallow from mis-informers like it: gross climate change denial, and the Daily Fail has pinned the radar of science writer Peter Hadfield more than once:
[QUOTE] No, sadly the Mail on Sunday has got it wrong... yet again. Here's what's behind the sensational news that global warming ended in 1997, and how it comes from misreporting, misquotes and omissions. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE] Climategate mark 2 -- the quotes and the contextAnd the Daily Mail still believing ‘hide the decline’ refers to global temperatures
[/QUOTE]
The Daily Mail? That’s just read by the wives of the people who run the country.
I don’t understand. You made an assertion and you want US to support it or disprove it? Do I have that right?
Sun readers don’t care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.
The Daily Mail has long been one of the main right-wing British newspapers, alongside the Daily Telegraph (upmarket) and the Sun (downmarket). The Mail speaks for and appeals to the right-wing middle-classes, anti-immigrant, anti-EU and anti-socialist. I must give it credit though for its genius in making its online edition one of the top news-sites on the web, especially for photographic coverage of world events.
Would it be piling on to ask, “Well, duh?”
Yes, prime minister!!!
Fixed that for you.
I have it on good authority that their hard-hitting journalism tends to highlight the right breast more than the left.
This is pretty much a commonplace in the UK. It supported Mosely’s fascists before the war.
That is not “fixing.” That is changing a quotation in direct violation of the rules that prohibit altering text within quote boxes.
This is a Warning to avoid such behavior in the future.
[ /Moderating ]
I agree. It’s online edition can be rather good. It does have it’s fair share of cliickbait, but it does also have some rather informative in-depth articles. As an example of it’s clickbait the online DM was the go to source for look what dumb thing Sarah Palin has said now clickbait headlines from 2008 onwards. The online DM contains simultaneously both the best and worst of online news.
And the BBC during this period was not much better. The BBC was an anti-Churchill organ during the 1930’s which backed appeasement. Not that this should inform our opinion on today’s BBC but worth mentioning if we are throwing mud at media organisations for their stance in the 1930’s.
My experience has been that the Daily Mail is not right.
Or at least, only rarely so. 
Is there a difference between the DM’s website (which I understand has quite an international following) and the print edition?
In the UK, the latter is stereotypically seen (by sanctimonious lefties like me) as notorious for typically tabloid slanted and hysterical headlines on anything to do with immigration, gypsies, crime, drugs, anti-social behaviour of all sorts - and, given the DM’s audience, which is a bit more upmarket than the likes of the Express or Sun, their effect on house prices. Just do a Google image search for “Daily Mail headlines”, and you get the flavour of both their real headlines and some people’s spoof ones (which will still tell you a lot about the DM’s reputation).
You’ll also find Guardianista feminists pointing to its somewhat hypocritical habit of commenting on the implied sexual attractiveness of almost any female in the public eye (whatever the age), despite ostensibly clinging to conventional conservative moralities.
But to their credit, they did make a great splash of forcing the issue on a racist murder that had become a cause célêbre on account of the shoddy initial police investigation (possibly also tainted by individual officers’ corruption), by openly and flatly accusing named people of murder (which would normally be considered an outrageous attempt at prejuding any future trial) - where some other tabloids would have closed ranks behind the police, come what may.
I love you both.
The late lamented Victoria Wood’s “Reincarnation” song skewered the (assumed) stereotypical Mail reader:
*I want to be Mrs Pugh
And live in an Avenue.
I want to have bing bong chimes
And a bathroom with a champagne suite.
In my candlewick dressing gown
I want to put Harpic down.
If my ironing smells quite fresh,
Then my happiness will be complete.
I’ll wear an apron when I chop my veggies,
Have tiny cactus on my window ledges,
Have a roller blind with scalloped edges.
I will never use a wok, so
I prefer to stick to Mrs Beeton,
Have a hob which I then re-heat on,
Use my toaster with the ears of wheat on.
I will do a lot with Oxo.
*
Hyacinth Bucket might read the DM in private (but would insist on having the Times delivered, for the neighbours to see).
If you ever watched Last Tango in Halifax, one of the early stumbles in Alan’s revived relationship with Celia was that she asked him to get the DM for her (and him a Guardian reader).
My brother asks for it in the store as the ‘Daily Fascist’, and he gets a copy too (his wife reads it; they disagree on politics)
It’s more generally known as the Daily Fail
No credit due; by sheer coincidence, Paul Dacre knew Neville Lawrence - Lawrence was a painter and decorator working on Dacre’s home, and had even met Stephen. Through that realisation came the support.