Hubbry Logo
Daily MailDaily MailMain
Open search
Daily Mail
Community hub
Daily Mail
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Daily Mail
Daily Mail
from Wikipedia

Key Information

The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid conservative newspaper founded in 1896 and published in London. Its sister paper The Mail on Sunday was launched in 1982, a Scottish edition was launched in 1947, and an Irish edition in 2006. Content from the paper appears on the MailOnline news website, although the website is managed separately and has its own editor.[5][6][7]

The paper is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust.[8] Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, a great-grandson of one of the original co-founders, is the chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail and General Trust, while day-to-day editorial decisions for the newspaper are usually made by a team led by the editor. Ted Verity succeeded Geordie Greig as editor on 17 November 2021.

A survey in 2014 found the average age of its readers was 58, and it had the lowest demographic for 15- to 44-year-olds among the major British dailies.[9] Uniquely for a British daily newspaper, women make up the majority (52–55%) of its readership.[10] It had an average daily circulation of 1.13 million copies in February 2020.[11] Between April 2019 and March 2020 it had an average daily readership of approximately 2.18 million, of whom approximately 1.41 million were in the ABC1 demographic and 0.77 million in the C2DE demographic.[12] Its website had more than 218 million unique visitors per month in 2020.[13]

The Daily Mail has won several awards, including receiving the National Newspaper of the Year award from The Press Awards nine times since 1994 (as of 2020).[14] The Society of Editors selected it as the 'Daily Newspaper of the Year' for 2020.[15] The Daily Mail has been criticised for its unreliability, its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories about science and medical research,[16][17][18][19] and for instances of plagiarism and copyright infringement.[20][21][22][23] In February 2017, the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source.[24][25][26]

Overview

[edit]

The Mail was originally a broadsheet but switched to a compact format on 3 May 1971, the 75th anniversary of its founding.[27] On this date it also absorbed the Daily Sketch, which had been published as a tabloid by the same company. The publisher of the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), is listed on the London Stock Exchange.

Circulation figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in February 2020 show gross daily sales of 1,134,184 for the Daily Mail.[11] According to a December 2004 survey, 53% of Daily Mail readers voted for the Conservative Party, compared to 21% for Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats.[28] The main concern of Viscount Rothermere, the current chairman and main shareholder, is that the circulation be maintained. He testified before a House of Lords select committee that "we need to allow editors the freedom to edit", and therefore the newspaper's editor was free to decide editorial policy, including its political allegiance.[29] On 17 November 2021, Ted Verity began a new seven-day role as editor of Mail newspapers, with responsibility for the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday and You magazine.[30]

History

[edit]

Early history

[edit]
Advertisement by the Daily Mail for insurance against Zeppelin attacks during the First World War

The Daily Mail, devised by Alfred Harmsworth (later Viscount Northcliffe) and his brother Harold (later Viscount Rothermere), was first published on 4 May 1896. It was an immediate success.[31]: 28  It cost a halfpenny at a time when other London dailies cost one penny, and was more populist in tone and more concise in its coverage than its rivals. The planned issue was 100,000 copies, but the print run on the first day was 397,215, and additional printing facilities had to be acquired to sustain a circulation that rose to 500,000 in 1899. Lord Salisbury, 19th-century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, dismissed the Daily Mail as "a newspaper produced by office boys for office boys."[32]: 590–591  By 1902, at the end of the Boer Wars, the circulation was over a million, making it the largest in the world.[33][34]

With Harold running the business side of the operation and Alfred as editor, the Mail from the start adopted an imperialist political stance, taking a patriotic line in the Second Boer War, leading to claims that it was not reporting the issues of the day objectively.[35] The Mail also set out to entertain its readers with human interest stories, serials, features and competitions.[36]: 5  It was the first newspaper to recognise the potential market of the female reader with a women's interest section[37][36]: 16  and hired one of the first female war correspondents Sarah Wilson who reported during the Second Boer War.[38][36]: 27 

In 1900, the Daily Mail began printing simultaneously in both Manchester and London, the first national newspaper to do so (in 1899, the Daily Mail had organised special trains to bring the London-printed papers north). The same production method was adopted in 1909 by the Daily Sketch, in 1927 by the Daily Express and eventually by virtually all the other national newspapers. Printing of the Scottish Daily Mail was switched from Edinburgh to the Deansgate plant in Manchester in 1968 and, for a while, The People was also printed on the Mail presses in Deansgate. In 1987, printing at Deansgate ended, and the northern editions were thereafter printed at other Associated Newspapers plants.

For a time in the early 20th century, the paper championed vigorously against the "Yellow Peril", warning of the alleged dangers said to be posted by Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom.[39] The "Yellow Peril" theme came to be abandoned because the Anglo-German naval race led to a more plausible threat to the British empire to be presented.[39] In common with other Conservative papers, the Daily Mail used the Anglo-German naval race as a way of criticising the Liberal governments that were in power from 1906 onward, claiming that the Liberals were too pusillanimous in their response to the Tirpitz plan.

In 1906, the paper offered £10,000 for the first flight from London to Manchester, followed by a £1,000 prize for the first flight across the English Channel.[31]: 29  Punch magazine thought the idea preposterous and offered £10,000 for the first flight to Mars, but by 1910 both the Mail's prizes had been won. The paper continued to award prizes for aviation sporadically until 1930.[40] Virginia Woolf criticised the Daily Mail as an unreliable newspaper, citing the statement published in the Daily Mail in July 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion that "every one of the Europeans was put to the sword in a most atrocious manner" as the Daily Mail maintained that the entire European community in Beijing had been massacred.[41] A month later in August 1900 the Daily Mail published a story about the relief of the western Legations in Beijing, where the westerners in Beijing together with the thousands of Chinese Christians had been under siege by the Boxers.[41]

Before the outbreak of the First World War, the paper was accused of warmongering when it reported that Germany was planning to crush the British Empire.[31]: 29  When war began, Northcliffe's call for conscription was seen by some as controversial, although he was vindicated when conscription was introduced in 1916.[42] On 21 May 1915, Northcliffe criticised Lord Kitchener, the Secretary of State for War, regarding weapons and munitions. Kitchener was considered by some to be a national hero. The paper's circulation dropped from 1,386,000 to 238,000. Fifteen hundred members of the London Stock Exchange burned unsold copies and called for a boycott of the Harmsworth Press. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith accused the paper of being disloyal to the country.

When Kitchener died, the Mail reported it as a great stroke of luck for the British Empire.[31]: 32  The paper was critical of Asquith's conduct of the war, and he resigned on 5 December 1916.[43] His successor David Lloyd George asked Northcliffe to be in his cabinet, hoping it would prevent him from criticising the government. Northcliffe declined.[44]

According to Piers Brendon:

Northcliffe's methods made the Mail the most successful newspaper hitherto seen in the history of journalism. But by confusing gewgaws with pearls, by selecting the paltry at the expense of the significant, by confirming atavistic prejudices, by oversimplifying the complex, by dramatising the humdrum, by presenting stories as entertainment and by blurring the difference between news and views, Northcliffe titillated, if he did not debouch, the public mind; he polluted, if he did not poison, the wells of knowledge.[45]

Inter-war period

[edit]

1919–1930

[edit]
Bundles of newspapers loaded into the back of a Daily Mail van in the early hours for delivery to newsagents in 1944

Light-hearted stunts enlivened Northcliffe, such as the 'Hat campaign' in the winter of 1920. This was a contest with a prize of £100 for a new design of hat – a subject in which Northcliffe took a particular interest. There were 40,000 entries and the winner was a cross between a top hat and a bowler christened the Daily Mail Sandringham Hat. The paper subsequently promoted the wearing of it but without much success.[46]

In 1919, Alcock and Brown made the first flight across the Atlantic, winning a prize of £10,000 from the Daily Mail. In 1930 the Mail made a great story of another aviation stunt, awarding another prize of £10,000 to Amy Johnson for making the first solo flight from England to Australia.[47]

The Daily Mail had begun the Ideal Home Exhibition in 1908. At first, Northcliffe had disdained this as a publicity stunt to sell advertising and he refused to attend. But his wife exerted pressure upon him and he changed his view, becoming more supportive. By 1922 the editorial side of the paper was fully engaged in promoting the benefits of modern appliances and technology to free its female readers from the drudgery of housework.[48] The Mail maintained the event until selling it to Media 10 in 2009.[49] As Lord Northcliffe aged, his grip on the paper slackened and there were periods when he was not involved. His physical and mental health declined rapidly in 1921, and he died in August 1922 at age 57. His brother Lord Rothermere took full control of the paper.[31]: 33 

In the Chanak Crisis of 1922, Britain almost went to war with Turkey. The Prime Minister David Lloyd George, supported by the War Secretary Winston Churchill, were determined to go to war over the Turkish demand that the British leave their occupation zone with Churchill sending out telegrams asking for Canada, Australia and New Zealand to all send troops for the expected war. George Ward Price, the "extra-special correspondent" of The Daily Mail was sympathetic towards the beleaguered British garrison at Chanak, but was also sympathetic towards the Turks.[50] Ward Price wrote in his articles that Mustafa Kemal did not have wider ambitions to restore the lost frontiers of the Ottoman Empire and only wanted the Allies to leave Asia Minor.[50] The Daily Mail ran a huge banner headline on 21 September 1922 that stated "Get Out Of Chanak!"[50] In a leader (editorial), the Daily Mail wrote that the views of Churchill, who very much favoured going to war with Turkey, were "bordering on insanity".[50] The same leader noted that Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King of Canada had rejected Churchill's request for troops, which led the leader to warn that Churchill's efforts to call upon the Dominions for help for the expected war were endangering the unity of the British empire.[50]

Rothermere had a fundamentally elitist conception of politics, believing that the natural leaders of Britain were upper class men like himself, and he strongly disapproved of the decision to grant women the right to vote together with the end of the franchise requirements that disfranchised lower-class men.[51] Feeling that British women and lower-class men were not really capable of understanding the issues, Rothermere started to lose faith in democracy.[51] In October 1922, the Daily Mail approved of the Fascist "March on Rome" as the newspaper argued that democracy had failed in Italy, thus requiring Benito Mussolini to set up his Fascist dictatorship to save the social order.[51] In 1923, Rothermere published a leader in The Daily Mail entitled "What Europe Owes Mussolini", where he wrote about his "profound admiration" for Mussolini, whom he praised for "in saving Italy he stopped the inroads of Bolshevism which would have left Europe in ruins...in my judgment he saved the entire Western world. It was because Mussolini overthrew Bolshevism in Italy that it collapsed in Hungary and ceased to gain adherents in Bavaria and Prussia".[52] In 1923, the newspaper supported the Italian occupation of Corfu and condemned the British government for at least rhetorically opposing the Italian attack on Greece.[53]

On 25 October 1924, the Daily Mail published the Zinoviev letter, which indicated Moscow was directing British Communists toward violent revolution. It was later proven to be a hoax. At the time many on the left blamed the letter for the defeat of Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party in the 1924 general election, held four days later.[54]

Unlike most newspapers, the Mail quickly took up an interest on the new medium of radio. In 1928, the newspaper established an early example of an offshore radio station aboard a yacht, both as a means of self-promotion and as a way to break the BBC's monopoly. However, the project failed as the equipment was not able to provide a decent signal from overboard, and the transmitter was replaced by a set of speakers. The yacht spent the summer entertaining beach-goers with gramophone records interspersed with publicity for the newspaper and its insurance fund. The Mail was also a frequent sponsor on continental commercial radio stations targeted towards Britain throughout the 1920s and 1930s and periodically voiced support for the legalisation of private radio, something that would not happen until 1973.

From 1923, Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail formed an alliance with the other great press baron, Lord Beaverbrook. Their opponent was the Conservative Party politician and leader Stanley Baldwin. Rothermere in a leader conceded that Fascist methods were "not suited to a country like our own", but qualified his remark with the statement, "if our northern cities became Bolshevik we would need them".[55] In an article in 1927 celebrating five years of Fascism in Italy, it was argued that there were parallels between modern Britain and Italy in the last years of the Liberal era as it was argued Italy had a series of weak liberal and conservative governments that made concessions to the Italian Socialist Party such as granting universal male suffrage in 1912 whose "only result was to hasten the arrival of disorder".[55] In the same article, Baldwin was compared to the Italian prime ministers of the Liberal era as the article argued that the General Strike of 1926 should never have been allowed to occur and the Baldwin government was condemned "for the feebleness which it tries to placate opposition by being more Socialist than the Socialists".[55] In 1928, the Daily Mail in a leader praised Mussolini as "the great figure of the age. Mussolini will probably dominate the history of the twentieth century as Napoleon dominated the early nineteen century".[56]

By 1929, George Ward Price was writing in the Mail that Baldwin should be deposed and Beaverbrook elected as leader. In early 1930, the two Lords launched the United Empire Party, which the Daily Mail supported enthusiastically.[31]: 35  Like Lord Beaverbrook, Rothermere was outraged by Baldwin's centre-right style of Conservatism and his decision to respond to almost universal suffrage by expanding the appeal of the Conservative Party.[57] Far from seeing giving women the right to vote as the disaster Rothermere believed that it was, Baldwin set out to appeal to female voters, a tactic that was politically successful, but led Rothermere to accuse Baldwin of "feminising" the Conservative Party.[57]

The rise of the new party dominated the newspaper, and, even though Beaverbrook soon withdrew, Rothermere continued to campaign. Vice Admiral Ernest Augustus Taylor fought the first by-election for the United Empire Party in October, defeating the official Conservative candidate by 941 votes. Baldwin's position was now in doubt, but in 1931 Duff Cooper won the key by-election at St George's, Westminster, beating the United Empire Party candidate, Sir Ernest Petter, supported by Rothermere, and this broke the political power of the press barons.[58]

In 1927, the celebrated picture of the year Morning by Dod Procter was bought by the Daily Mail for the Tate Gallery.[59]

In 1927, Rothermere, under the influence of his Hungarian mistress, Countess Stephanie von Hohenlohe, took up the cause of Hungary as his own, publishing a leader on 21 June 1927 entitled "Hungary's Place in the Sun".[60] In "Hungary's Place in the Sun", he approvingly noted that Hungary was dominated both politically and economically by its "chivalrous and warlike aristocracy", whom he noted in past centuries had battled the Ottoman Empire, leading him to conclude that all of Europe owned a profound debt to the Hungarian aristocracy which had been "Europe's bastion against which the forces of Mahomet [the Prophet Mohammed] vainly hurled themselves against".[61] Rothermere argued that it was unjust that the "noble" Hungarians should be under the rule of "cruder and more barbaric races", by which he meant the peoples of Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.[61] In his leader, he advocated that Hungary retake all of the lands lost under the Treaty of Trianon, which caused immediate concern in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Romania, where it was believed that his leader reflected British government policy.[60] Additionally, he took up the cause of the Sudeten Germans, stating that the Sudetenland should go to Germany.[61] The Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Edvard Beneš was so concerned that he visited London to meet King George V, a man who detested Rothermere and used language that was so crude, vulgar and "unkingy" that Beneš had to report to Prague that he could not possibly repeat the king's remarks.[61] Rothermere's "Justice for Hungary" campaign, which he continued until February 1939, was a source of disquiet for the Foreign Office, which complained that British relations with Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania were constantly stained as the leaders of those nations continued to harbour the belief that Rothermere was in some way speaking for the British government.[62]

One of the major themes of The Daily Mail was the opposition to the Indian independence movement and much of Rothermere's opposition to Baldwin was based upon the belief that Baldwin was not sufficiently opposed to Indian independence. In 1930, Rothermere wrote a series of leaders under the title "If We Lose India!", claiming that granting India independence would be the end of Britain as a great power.[63] In addition, Rothermere predicted that Indian independence would end worldwide white supremacy as inevitably, the peoples of the other British colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas would also demand independence. The decision of the Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to open the Round Table Conferences in 1930 was greeted by The Daily Mail as the beginning of the end of Britain as a great power.[64] As part of its crusade against Indian independence, The Daily Mail published a series of articles portraying the peoples of India as ignorant, barbarous, filthy and fanatical, arguing that the Raj was necessary to save India from the Indians, whom The Daily Mail argued were not capable of handling independence.[64]

1930–1939

[edit]

Lord Rothermere was a friend of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and directed the Mail's editorial stance towards them in the early 1930s.[65][66] Lord Rothermere took an extreme anti-Communist line, which led him to own an estate in Hungary to which he might escape to in case Britain was conquered by the Soviet Union.[67] Shortly after the Nazis scored their breakthrough in the Reichstag elections on 14 September 1930, winning 107 seats, Rothermere went to Munich to interview Hitler.[68] In an article published in Daily Mail on 24 September 1930, Rothermere wrote: "These young Germans have discovered, as I am glad to note that the young men and women of England are discovering, that is no good trusting the old politicians. Accordingly, they have formed, as I should like to see our British youth form, a parliamentary party of their own...We can do nothing to check this movement [the Nazis], and I believe it would be a blunder for the British people to take up an attitude of hostility towards it."[68] Starting in December 1931, Rothermere opened up talks with Oswald Mosley under which terms the Daily Mail would support his party.[69] The talks were drawn out largely because Mosley understood that Rothermere was a megalomaniac who wanted to use the New Party for his own purposes as he sought to impose terms and conditions in exchange for the support of the Daily Mail.[69] Mosley, who was equally egoistical, wanted Rothermere's support, but only on his own terms.[69]

Rothermere's 1933 leader "Youth Triumphant" praised the new Nazi regime's accomplishments, and was subsequently used as propaganda by them.[70] In it, Rothermere predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany". Journalist John Simpson, in a book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere was referring to the violence against Jews and Communists rather than the detention of political prisoners.[71][page needed] Alongside his support for Nazi Germany as the "bulwark against Bolshevism", Rothermere used The Daily Mail as a forum to champion his pet cause, namely a stronger Royal Air Force (RAF).[72] Rothermere had decided that aerial war was the technology of the future, and throughout the 1930s The Daily Mail was described as "obsessional" in pressing for more spending on the RAF.[73]

Rothermere and the Mail were also editorially sympathetic to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists.[74] Rothermere wrote an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" published in the Daily Mail on 15 January 1934, praising Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine",[75] and stating that: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W."[76] The Spectator condemned Rothermere's article commenting that, "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking. The average Daily Mail reader is a potential Blackshirt ready made. When Lord Rothermere tells his clientele to go and join the Fascists some of them pretty certainly will."[77] In April 1934, the Daily Mail ran a competition entitled "Why I Like The Blackshirts" under which it awarded one pound every week for the best letter from its readers explaining why they liked the BUF.[69] The paper's support ended after violence at a BUF rally in Kensington Olympia in June 1934.[78] Mosley and many others thought Rothermere had responded to pressure from Jewish businessmen who it was believed had threatened to stop advertising in the paper if it continued to back an anti-Semitic party.[79] The paper editorially continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees escaping Germany, describing their arrival as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed."[80]

In December 1934, Rothermere visited Berlin as the guest of Joachim von Ribbentrop.[81] During his visit, Rothermere was publicly thanked in a speech by Josef Goebbels for the Daily Mail's pro-German coverage of the Saarland referendum, under which the people of the Saarland had the choices of voting to remain under the rule of the League of Nations, join France, or rejoin Germany.[81] In March 1935, impressed by the arguments put forward by Ribbentrop for the return of the former German colonies in Africa, Rothermere published a leader entitled "Germany Must Have Elbow Room".[82] In his leader, Rothermere argued that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh towards the Reich and claimed that the German economy was being crippled by the loss of the German colonial empire in Africa as he argued that without African colonies to exploit that the German economic recovery from the Great Depression was fragile and shallow.[82]

J. F. C. Fuller was Daily Mail's military correspondent in the Italian camp during the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in late 1935.[83] An Italophile member of the British Union of Fascists and the British Union of Friends of Italy, he compared Mussolini's troops to the crusaders and the Hussites.[84]

During the Spanish Civil War, the Daily Mail ran a photo-essay on 27 July 1936 by Ferdinand Tuohy entitled "The Red Carmens, the women who burn churches".[85] Tuohy took a series of photographs of Spanish women who joined the Worker's Militia marching up to the front with rifles and ammunition pouches over their shoulders.[85] In an essay that has been widely criticised as misogynistic, Tuohy wrote: "The Spanish women has been a creature to admire or make work domestically, to marry or let slip away into a religious order...65 percent were illiterate".[86] Tuohy declared his horror at the young Spanish women had rejected the traditional patriarchal system, writing with disgust that the "direct action girls" of the Worker's Militia do not want to be like their mothers, submissive and obedient to men.[86] Tuohy called these young women "Red Carmens", associating them with the destructive heroine of the opera Carmen and with Communism, writing the "Red Carmens" proved the amorality of the Spanish Republic, which had preached gender equality.[86] For Tuohy, women to fight in a war was to reject their femininity, leading him to label these women as monstrous as he accused the "Red Carmens" of "sexual depravity", writing with utter horror at the possibility of these women engaging in premarital sex, which for him marked the beginning of the end of "civilisation" itself.[87] The British historian Caroline Brothers wrote that Tuohy's article said much about the gender politics of The Daily Mail, which ran his photo-essay and presumably of The Daily Mail's readers who were expected to approve of the article.[88]

In a 1937 article, George Ward Price, the special correspondent of The Daily Mail, approvingly wrote: "The sense of national unity-the Volkgemeinschaft-to which the Führer constantly appeals in his speeches is not a rhetorical invention, but a reality".[89] Ward Price was one of the most controversial British journalists of the 1930s, who was one of the few British journalists allowed to interview both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler because both fascist leaders knew that Ward Price could be trusted to take a favourable tone and ask "soft" questions.[89] Wickham Steed called Ward Price "the lackey of Mussolini, Hitler and Rothermere".[89] The British historian Daniel Stone called Ward Price's reporting from Berlin and Rome "a mixture of snobbery, name dropping and obsequious pro-fascism of a most genteel 'English' type".[89] In the 1938 crisis over the Sudetenland, The Daily Mail was very hostile in its picture of President Edvard Beneš, whom Rothermere noted disapprovingly in a leader in July 1938 had signed an alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935, leading him to accuse Beneš of turning "Czechoslovakia into a corridor for Russia against Germany".[90] Rothermere concluded his leader: "If Czechoslovakia becomes involved in a war, the British nation will say to the Prime Minister with one voice: 'Keep out of it!'"[90]

During the Danzig crisis, the Daily Mail was inadvertently used by the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to persuade Hitler that Britain would not go to war for the defence of Poland. Ribbentrop had the German Embassy in London headed by Herbert von Dirksen provide translations from pro-appeasement newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Express for Hitler's benefit, which had the effect of making it seem that British public opinion was more strongly against going to war for Poland than was actually the case.[91][92] The British historian Victor Rothwell wrote that the newspapers that Ribbentrop used to provide his press summaries for Hitler such as the Daily Express and the Daily Mail, were out of touch not only with British public opinion, but also with British government policy in regards to the Danzig crisis.[92] The press summaries Ribbentrop provided were particularly important as Ribbentrop had managed to convince Hitler that the British government secretly controlled the British press, and just as in Germany, nothing appeared in the British press that the British government did not want to appear.[93]

Post-war history

[edit]
Sub-editor's room at the offices of the Daily Mail newspaper in 1944

On 5 May 1946, the Daily Mail celebrated its Golden Jubilee. Winston Churchill was the chief guest at the banquet and toasted it with a speech.[94] Newsprint rationing in the Second World War had forced the Daily Mail to cut its size to four pages, but the size gradually increased through the 1950s.[94] In 1947, when the Raj ended, the Daily Mail featured a banner headline reading "India: 11 words mark the end of an empire".[95] During the Suez crisis of 1956, the Daily Mail consistently took a hardline against President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, taking the viewpoint that Britain was justified in invading Egypt to retake control of the Suez canal and topple Nasser.[96]

The Daily Mail was transformed by its editor during the 1970s and 1980s, David English. He had been editor of the Daily Sketch from 1969 to 1971, when it closed. Part of the same group from 1953, the Sketch was absorbed by its sister title, and English became editor of the Mail, a post in which he remained for more than 20 years.[97] English transformed it from a struggling newspaper selling half as many copies as its mid-market rival, the Daily Express, to a formidable publication, whose circulation rose to surpass that of the Express by the mid-1980s.[98] English was knighted in 1982.[99]

The paper enjoyed a period of journalistic success in the 1980s, employing Fleet Street writers such as gossip columnist Nigel Dempster, Lynda Lee-Potter and sportswriter Ian Wooldridge (who unlike some of his colleagues – the paper generally did not support sporting boycotts of white-minority-ruled South Africa – strongly opposed apartheid). In 1982 a Sunday title, the Mail on Sunday, was launched (the Scottish Sunday Mail, now owned by the Mirror Group, was founded in 1919 by the first Lord Rothermere, but later sold).[100]

Knighted in 1982, Sir David English became editor-in-chief and chairman of Associated Newspapers in 1992 after Rupert Murdoch had attempted to hire Evening Standard editor Paul Dacre as editor of The Times. The Evening Standard was then part of the Associated Newspapers group, and Dacre was appointed to succeed English at the Daily Mail as a means of dealing with Murdoch's offer.[101] Dacre retired as editor of the Daily Mail but remains editor-in-chief of the group.

In late 2013, the paper moved its London printing operation from the city's Docklands area to a new £50 million plant in Thurrock, Essex.[102] There are Scottish editions of both the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, with different articles and columnists.

In August 2016, the Daily Mail began a partnership with The People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party.[103][104] This partnership included publishing articles in the MailOnline produced by The People's Daily. The agreement appeared to observers to give the paper an edge in publishing news stories sourced out of China, but it also led to questions of censorship regarding politically sensitive topics.[105]

In November 2016, Lego ended a series of promotions in the paper which had run for years, following a campaign from the group 'Stop Funding Hate', who were unhappy with the Mail's coverage of migrant issues and the EU referendum.[106]

In September 2017, the Daily Mail partnered with Stage 29 Productions to launch DailyMailTV, an international news program produced by Stage 29 Productions in its studios based in New York City with satellite studios in London, Sydney, DC and Los Angeles.[107][108] Dr. Phil McGraw (Stage 29 Productions) was named as executive producer.[109] The program was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Entertainment News Program in 2018.[110]

In May 2020, the Daily Mail ended The Sun's 42-year reign as the United Kingdom's highest-circulation newspaper. The Daily Mail recorded average daily sales of 980,000 copies, with the Mail on Sunday recording weekly sales of 878,000.[111]

In August 2022, the Daily Mail wrote in support of Liz Truss in the July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election.[112][non-primary source needed]

Scottish, Irish, Continental, and Indian editions

[edit]

Scottish Daily Mail

[edit]
The Scottish Daily Mail header

The Scottish Daily Mail was published as a separate title from Edinburgh[113] starting in December 1946. The circulation was poor though, falling to below 100,000 and the operation was rebased to Manchester in December 1968.[114] The Scottish Daily Mail was relaunched in 1995; it is printed in Glasgow. It had an average circulation of 67,900 in the area of Scotland in December 2019.[115]

Irish Daily Mail

[edit]

The Daily Mail officially entered the Irish market with the launch of a local version of the paper on 6 February 2006; free copies of the paper were distributed on that day in some locations to publicise the launch. Its masthead differed from that of UK versions by having a green rectangle with the word "IRISH", instead of the Royal Arms, but this was later changed, with "Irish Daily Mail" displayed instead. The Irish version includes stories of Irish interest alongside content from the UK version. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the Irish edition had a circulation of 63,511 for July 2007,[116] falling to an average of 49,090 for the second half of 2009.[117] Since 24 September 2006 Ireland on Sunday, the Irish Sunday newspaper acquired by Associated in 2001, was replaced by an Irish edition of the Mail on Sunday (the Irish Mail on Sunday), to tie in with the weekday newspaper.

Continental and Overseas Daily Mail

[edit]

Two foreign editions were begun in 1904 and 1905; the former titled the Overseas Daily Mail, covering the world, and the latter titled the Continental Daily Mail, covering Europe and North Africa.[36]

Mail Today

[edit]

The newspaper entered India on 16 November 2007 with the launch of Mail Today,[118] a 48-page compact size newspaper printed in Delhi, Gurgaon and Noida with a print run of 110,000 copies. Based around a subscription model, the newspaper has the same fonts and feel as the Daily Mail and was set up with investment from Associated Newspapers and editorial assistance from the Daily Mail newsroom.[119] The paper alternated between supporting the Congress-led UPA regime as well as the BJP-led NDA regime. Between 2010 and 2014, it supported the Kapil Sibal–led reforms to change the undergraduate structure at the University of Delhi.[120] In 2016, it was the first newspaper to break the controversial story about terror slogans being raised in favour of the hanged terrorist Afzal Guru on his death anniversary at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.[121]

Editorial stance

[edit]

As a right-wing tabloid,[1][2][3] the Mail is traditionally a supporter of the Conservative Party. It has endorsed the party in every UK general election since 1945, with the one exception of the October 1974 UK general election, where it endorsed a Liberal and Conservative coalition.[122][123][124][125] While the paper retained its support for the Conservative Party at the 2015 general election, the paper urged conservatively inclined voters to support UKIP in the constituencies of Heywood and Middleton, Dudley North, and Great Grimsby where UKIP was the main challenger to the Labour Party.[citation needed]

On international affairs, regarding the 2008 South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia, the Mail said that Russia had "behaved with shocking arrogance and brutality", but accused the British government of dragging Britain into an unnecessary confrontation with Russia and of hypocrisy regarding its protests over Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia's independence, citing the British government's own recognition of Kosovo's independence from Russia's ally Serbia.[126][non-primary source needed]

The Mail published an article by Joanna Blythman in 2012 opposing the growing of genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom.[127][non-primary source needed]

The Daily Mail endorsed voting to leave in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.[128]

Awards

[edit]

The Daily Mail has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2011, 2016 and 2019[129] by the British Press Awards.

Daily Mail journalists have won a range of British Press Awards, including:

  • "Campaign of the Year" (Murder of Stephen Lawrence, 2012)
  • "Website of the Year" (Mail Online, 2012)
  • "News Team of the Year" (Daily Mail, 2012)
  • "Critic of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2010)[130]
  • "Political Journalist of the Year" (Quentin Letts, 2009)
  • "Specialist Journalist of the Year" (Stephen Wright, 2009)[131]
  • "Showbiz Reporter of the Year" (Benn Todd, 2012)
  • "Feature Writer of the Year – Popular" (David Jones, 2012)
  • "Columnist of the Year – Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012) (Peter Oborne, 2016)
  • "Best of Humour" – (Craig Brown, 2012)
  • "Columnist – Popular" (Craig Brown, 2012)
  • "Sports Reporter of the Year" (Jeff Powell, 2005)
  • "Sports Photographer of the Year" (Mike Egerton, 2012; Andy Hooper, 2008, 2010, 2016)
  • "Cartoonist of the Year" (Stanley 'MAC' McMurtry, 2016)
  • "Interviewer of the Year – Popular" (Jan Moir, 2019)[132]
  • "Columnist of the Year – Popular " (Sarah Vine, 2019)
  • "The Hugh McIlvanney Award for Sports Journalist of the Year" (Laura Lambert, 2019)
  • "Sports News Story" (Saracens, 2019)
  • "News Reporter of the Year" (Tom Kelly; jointly with Claire Newell of The Daily Telegraph, 2019)

Other awards include:

Noted reporting

[edit]

Suffragette

[edit]

The term "suffragette" was first used in 1906, as a term of derision by the journalist Charles E. Hands in the Mail to describe activists in the movement for women's suffrage, in particular members of the WSPU.[135][136][137] However, the women he intended to ridicule embraced the term, saying "suffraGETtes" (hardening the 'g'), implying not only that they wanted the vote, but that they intended to 'get' it.[138]

Zinoviev Letter

[edit]

In 1924, the Daily Mail published a letter before the elections in Britain. the letter was purportedly written by Grigory Zinoviev to call for Bolshevik-like revolution in UK. The letter's authenticity has since been questioned.

Holes in the road

[edit]

On 17 January 1967, the Mail published a story, "The holes in our roads", about potholes, giving the examples of Blackburn where it said there were 4,000 holes. This detail was then immortalised by John Lennon in The Beatles song "A Day in the Life", along with an account of the death of 21-year-old socialite Tara Browne in a car crash on 18 December 1966, which also appeared in the same issue.[139]

Unification Church

[edit]

In 1981, the Daily Mail ran an investigation into the Unification Church, nicknamed the Moonies, accusing them of ending marriages and brainwashing converts.[98] The Unification Church, which always denied these claims, sued for libel but lost heavily. A jury awarded the Mail a then record-breaking £750,000 libel payout (equivalent to £3,631,057 in 2023). In 1983 the paper won a special British Press Award for a "relentless campaign against the malignant practices of the Unification Church."[140]

Gay gene controversy

[edit]

On 16 July 1993, the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".[141][142] Of the tabloid headlines which commented on the Xq28 gene, the Mail's was criticised as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all".[143]

Stephen Lawrence

[edit]

The Mail campaigned vigorously for justice over the murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. On 14 February 1997, the Mail front page pictured the five men accused of Lawrence's murder with the headline "MURDERERS", stating "if we are wrong, let them sue us".[144] This attracted praise from Paul Foot and Peter Preston.[145] Some journalists contended the Mail had belatedly changed its stance on the Lawrence murder, with the newspaper's earlier focus being the alleged opportunistic behaviour of anti-racist groups ("How Race Militants Hijacked a Tragedy", 10 May 1993) and alleged insufficient coverage of the case (20 articles in three years).[146][147]

Two men who the Mail had featured in their "Murderers" headline were found guilty in 2012 of murdering Lawrence. After the verdict, Lawrence's parents and numerous political figures thanked the newspaper for taking the potential financial risk involved with the 1997 headline.[148]

Stephen Gately

[edit]

On 16 October 2009, a Jan Moir article criticised aspects of the life and death of Stephen Gately. It was published six days after his death and before his funeral. The Press Complaints Commission received over 25,000 complaints, a record number, regarding the timing and content of the article. It was criticised as insensitive, inaccurate and homophobic.[149][150] The Press Complaints Commission did not uphold complaints about the article.[151][152] Major advertisers, such as Marks & Spencer, had their adverts removed from the Mail Online webpage containing Moir's article.[153]

Cannabis use

[edit]

On 13 June 2011, a study by Matt Jones and Michal Kucewicz[154] on the effects of cannabinoid receptor activation in the brain was published in The Journal of Neuroscience[154][155][156] and the British medical journal The Lancet.[157] The study was used in articles by CBS News,[158] Le Figaro,[159] and Bild[160] among others.

In October 2011, the Daily Mail printed an article citing the research, titled "Just ONE cannabis joint can bring on schizophrenia as well as damaging memory." The group Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), which campaigns for ending drug prohibition, criticised the Daily Mail report.[161] Matt Jones, co-author of the study, said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the article, and stated: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".[161] Dorothy Bishop, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, in her blog awarded the Daily Mail the "Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation",[162][163] The Mail later changed the article's headline to: "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory."[164]

Ralph Miliband article

[edit]

In September 2013, the Mail was criticised for an article on Ralph Miliband (late father of then Labour-leader Ed Miliband and prominent Marxist sociologist), titled "The Man Who Hated Britain".[165][166] Ed Miliband said that the article was "ludicrously untrue", that he was "appalled" and "not willing to see my father's good name be undermined in this way". Ralph Miliband had arrived in the UK from Belgium as a Jewish refugee from the Holocaust. The Jewish Chronicle described the article as "a revival of the 'Jews can't be trusted because of their divided loyalties' genre of antisemitism."[167] Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith linked the article to the Nazi sympathies of the 1st Viscount Rothermere, whose family remain the paper's owners.[166][165][168]

The paper defended the article's general content in an editorial, but described its use of a picture of Ralph Miliband's grave as an "error of judgement".[169] In the editorial, the paper further remarked that "We do not maintain, like the jealous God of Deuteronomy, that the iniquity of the fathers should be visited on the sons. But when a son with prime ministerial ambitions swallows his father's teachings, as the younger Miliband appears to have done, the case is different."[170] A spokesman for the paper also described claims that the article continued its history of anti-Semitism as "absolutely spurious."[171] However, the reference to "the jealous God of Deuteronomy" was criticised by Jonathan Freedland, who said that "In the context of a piece about a foreign-born Jew, [the remark] felt like a subtle, if not subterranean hint to the reader, a reminder of the ineradicable alienness of this biblically vengeful people"[172] and that "those ready to acquit the Mail because there was no bald, outright statement of antisemitism were probably using the wrong measure."[173]

Gawker Media lawsuit

[edit]

In March 2015, James King, a former contract worker at the Mail's New York office, wrote an article for Gawker titled 'My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online'. In the article, King alleged that the Mail's approach was to rewrite stories from other news outlets with minimal credit in order to gain advertising clicks, and that staffers had published material they knew to be false. He also suggested that the paper preferred to delete stories from its website rather than publish corrections or admit mistakes.[174]

In September 2015, the Mail's US company Mail Media filed a $1 million lawsuit against King and Gawker Media for libel.[175] Eric Wemple at The Washington Post questioned the value of the lawsuit, stating that "Whatever the merits of King's story, it didn't exactly upend conventional wisdom" about the website's strategy.[176] In November 2016, Lawyers for Gawker filed a motion to resolve the lawsuit. Under the terms of the motion, Gawker was not required to pay any financial compensation, but agreed to add an Editor's Note at the beginning of the King article, remove an illustration in the post which incorporated the Daily Mail's logo, and publish a statement by DailyMail.com in the same story.[177][178]

Anti-refugee cartoon

[edit]

Following the November 2015 Paris attacks,[179] a cartoon in the Daily Mail by Stanley McMurtry ("Mac") linked the European migrant crisis (with a focus on Syria in particular[180]) to the terrorist attacks, and criticised the European Union immigration laws for allowing Islamist radicals to gain easy access into the United Kingdom.[181] Despite being compared to Nazi propaganda,[182] and criticised as racist, the cartoon received praise on the Mail Online website.[183] A Daily Mail spokesperson told The Independent: "We are not going to dignify these absurd comments which wilfully misrepresent this cartoon apart from to say that we have not received a single complaint from any reader".[179] Kate Allen, director of Amnesty International UK, criticised the Daily Mail's cartoon for being "reckless xenophobia".[184]

Anthony Weiner scandal

[edit]

In September 2016, the Mail Online published a lengthy interview and screenshots from a 15-year-old girl who claimed that the American politician Anthony Weiner had sent her sexually explicit images and messages. The revelation led to Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin – an aide of Hillary Clinton – separating.[185] Weiner pleaded guilty in May 2017 to sending obscene material to a minor, and in September he was jailed for 21 months.[186]

Campaigns against plastic pollution

[edit]

The paper has campaigned against plastic pollution in various forms since 2008. The paper called for a levy on single use plastic bags.[17] The Daily Mail's work in highlighting the issue of plastic pollution was praised by the head of the United Nations Environment Program, Erik Solheim at a conference in Kenya in 2017.[187] Emily Maitlis, the newscaster, asked Green Party leader Caroline Lucas on Newsnight, 'Is the biggest friend to the Environment at the moment the Daily Mail?' in reference to the paper's call for a ban on plastic microbeads and other plastic pollution, and suggested it had done more for the environment than the Green Party. Environment group ClientEarth has also highlighted the paper's role in drawing attention to the plastic pollution problem along with the Blue Planet II documentary.[188][189]

Gary McKinnon deportation

[edit]

Attempts by the United States government to extradite Gary McKinnon, a British computer hacker, were campaigned against by the paper. In 2002, McKinnon was accused of perpetrating the "biggest military computer hack of all time"[190] although McKinnon himself states that he was merely looking for evidence of free energy suppression and a cover-up of UFO activity and other technologies potentially useful to the public. The Daily Mail began to support McKinnon's campaign in 2009 – with a series of front-page stories protesting against his deportation.[191]

On 16 October 2012, after a series of legal proceedings in Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May withdrew her extradition order to the United States. Gary McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp praised the paper's contribution to saving her son from deportation in her book in which she said: 'Thanks to Theresa May, David Cameron and the support of David Burrowes and so many others – notably the Daily Mail – my son was safe, he was going to live.'[192][193]

Abd Ali Hameed al-Waheed

[edit]

In December 2017, the Daily Mail published a front-page story entitled "Another human rights fiasco!", with the subheading "Iraqi 'caught red-handed with bomb' wins £33,000 – because our soldiers kept him in custody for too long". The story related to a judge's decision to award money to Abd Ali Hameed al-Waheed after he had been unlawfully imprisoned. The headline was printed despite the fact that during the trial itself the judge concluded that claims that al-Waheed had been caught with a bomb were "pure fiction".

In July 2018, the Independent Press Standards Organisation ordered the paper to publish a front-page correction after finding the newspaper had breached rules on accuracy in its reporting of the case. The Daily Mail reported that a major internal investigation was conducted following the decision to publish the story, and as a result, "strongly worded disciplinary notes were sent to seven senior members of staff", which made it clear "that if errors of the same nature were to happen again, their careers would be at risk".[194]

Doctored image of Korean soldiers in Ukraine

[edit]

On 4 December 2024, the Daily Mail published an online story about the Russo-Ukrainian War under the headline "Kim Jong Un sends North Korean women to fight as cannon fodder for Putin in Ukraine".[195] The story was accompanied by a photo of what appeared to be two Korean women in combat fatigues.[195][196] It was later revealed that the photo was an older image of two Russian soldiers whose facial features had been doctored to appear Korean.[195] According to Mediaite, the Daily Mail "received backlash and ridicule on social media before it removed the article and issued a correction notice".[196]

Lawsuits

[edit]
  • 2017, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre threatened the website Byline Investigates with legal action and insisted on the removal of three articles about the Daily Mail's use of private investigator Steve Whittamore.[197][198]
  • On 15 November 2019, Byline Investigates published court documents of a lawsuit filed by Meghan Markle against the Daily Mail in which she accused the newspaper of a campaign of "untrue" stories.[199][200][201][202]

Successful lawsuits against the Mail

[edit]
  • 2001, February: Businessman Alan Sugar was awarded £100,000 in damages following a story commenting on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club.[203]
  • 2003, October: Actress Diana Rigg was awarded £30,000 in damages over a story commenting on aspects of her personality.[204]
  • 2006, May: Musician Elton John received £100,000 damages following false accusations concerning his manners and behaviour.[205]
  • 2009, January: £30,000 award to Austen Ivereigh, who had worked for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, following false accusations made by the newspaper concerning abortion.[206]
  • 2010, July: £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam for falsely claiming that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square to draw attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009.[207]
  • 2011, November: the former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she would reveal intimate details about former clients.[208]
  • 2014, May: Author J. K. Rowling received "substantial damages" and the Mail printed an apology. The newspaper had made a false claim about Rowling's story written for the website of Gingerbread, a single parents' charity.[209]
  • 2017, April: First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, received an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s.[210] In September 2016, she began litigation against the Daily Mail for an article which discussed escort allegations. The article included rebuttals and said that there was no evidence to support the allegations. The Mail regretted any misinterpretation that could have come from reading the article, and retracted it from its website.[211] Melania Trump filed a lawsuit in Maryland, suing for $150 million.[212] On 7 February 2017, the lawsuit was re-filed in the correct jurisdiction, New York, where the Daily Mail's parent company has offices, seeking damages of at least $150 million.[213]
  • 2018, June: Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from Associated Newspapers over a claim that he acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales.[214]
  • 2019, June: Associated Newspapers paid £120,000 in damages plus costs to Interpal, a UK-based charity which the Mail falsely accused of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine which acted out the murder of Jews.[215]
  • 2020, November: The Mail agreed to pay libel damages of £25,000 and apologised for distress caused to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal, who they had falsely claimed "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war".[216]
  • 2020, December: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after suggesting they had behaved badly towards their former housekeeper.[217]
  • 2021, January: Associated Newspapers paid damages and apologised to a British Pakistani couple about whom they had made false allegations in relation to their work as counter-extremism experts.[218]
  • 2021, May: Associated Newspapers paid substantial damages and apologised after revealing the identity of a complainant in a rape case against film director Luc Besson.[219]

Unsuccessful lawsuits

[edit]
  • 1981, April: The Daily Mail won £750,000 from the Unification Church, which had sued for libel due to articles about the Church's recruitment methods. Margaret Singer, professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Berkeley, testified that the Mail's accounts of these methods were accurate. The trial lasted over five months, one of Britain's longest-ever civil trials.[220]
  • 2012, February: Nathaniel Rothschild lost his libel case against the Daily Mail, after the High Court agreed that he was indeed the "Puppet Master" for Peter Mandelson, that his conduct had been "inappropriate in a number of respects" and that the words used by the Daily Mail were "substantially true".[221][222]
  • 2012, May: Carina Trimingham, the partner of former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne, was ordered to pay more than £400,000 after she lost her High Court claims for damages for alleged breach of privacy and harassment against the Daily Mail.[223] Huhne, whilst married, had an affair with Trimingham – who herself was in a lesbian civil partnership – and then later left his wife Vicky Pryce for Trimingham. This and a series of other events involving Pryce and Huhne led to his resignation from the Cabinet, and to both of them being arrested for perverting the course of justice and the criminal prosecution R v Huhne and Pryce.[224]
  • 2021: Former US congress representative Katie Hill was judicially ordered to reimburse the Daily Mail and others $220,000 for legal fees incurred defending themselves against baseless revenge porn claims raised by Hill.[225][226]
[edit]

In March 2021, Associated Newspapers issued a letter to ViacomCBS to remove an image of a purported Daily Mail headline from Oprah with Meghan and Harry. The headline seen was "Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family", which had been edited to remove the context that it was a quotation by an unrelated politician.[227]

Criticism

[edit]

Paying for footage under investigation

[edit]

In 2015, following the November 2015 Paris attacks, the French police viewed the footage of the attacks from the CCTV system of La Casa Nostra. After making a copy on a USB flash drive, the police ordered a technician from the CCTV company that installed the system to encrypt the footage, saying 'this now falls under the confidentiality of the investigation, it must remain here'. Freelance journalist Djaffer Ait Aoudia told The Guardian that he secretly filmed a Daily Mail representative negotiating with the owner to sell the CCTV footage of the attacks. The café owner agreed to supply the footage for €50,000 and asked an IT technician to make the footage accessible again. The Daily Mail responded: "There is nothing controversial about the Mail's acquisition of this video, a copy of which the police already had in their possession." The Guardian also, briefly, embedded the footage on their own website before removing it.[228]

Byline removal

[edit]

In 2017, evoke.ie, the Daily Mail's showbiz site, was reported to the internship program of Dublin City University after the bylines of hundreds of articles written by students were changed.[229]

Sensationalism

[edit]

The Guardian said that the Daily Mail have an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer".[18] It has also been criticised for their extent of coverage of celebrities,[230] the children of celebrities,[231] property prices,[232] and the depiction of asylum seekers,[233] the latter of which was discussed in the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2007.[234][235]

Reliability

[edit]

The Daily Mail's medical and science journalism has been criticised by some doctors and scientists, accusing it of using minor studies to generate scare stories or being misleading.[19][18][236] In 2011, the Daily Mail published an article titled "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory".[237] Matt Jones, the lead author of the study that is cited in the article was quoted by Cannabis Law Reform as saying: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".[238]

Carbon Brief complained to the Press Complaints Commission about an article published in the Daily Mail titled "Hidden green tax in fuel bills: How a £200 stealth charge is slipped on to your gas and electricity bills" because the £200 figure was unexplained, unreferenced and, according to Ofgem, incorrect. The Daily Mail quietly removed the article from their website.[239][240][241]

In 2013, the Met Office criticised an article about climate change in the Daily Mail by James Delingpole for containing "a series of factual inaccuracies".[242] The Daily Mail in response published a letter from the Met Office chairman on its letters page, as well as offering to append the letter to Delingpole's article.[243]

In August 2018, the Mail Online deleted a lengthy news article titled "Powder Keg Paris" by journalist Andrew Malone which focused on "illegal migrants" living in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis, after a string of apparent inaccuracies were highlighted on social media by French activist Marwan Muhammad, including mistaking Saint-Denis, the city, for Seine-Saint-Denis, the department northeast of Paris. Local councillor Majid Messaoudene said that the article had set out to "stigmatise" and "harm" the area and its people. The journalist, Andrew Malone, subsequently deleted his Twitter account.[244][245] In 2019, the IPSO ruled against the Daily Mail and confirmed in its ruling that the article was inaccurate.[246][247]

In early 2019, the mobile version of the Microsoft Edge web browser started warning visitors to the MailOnline site, via its NewsGuard plugin, that "this website generally fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability" and "has been forced to pay damages in numerous high-profile cases".[248] In late January 2019, the status of the MailOnline was changed by the NewsGuard Plugin from Red to Green, updating its verdict to "this website generally maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability". An Editor's Note from NewsGuard stated that "This label now has the benefit of the dailymail.co.uk's input and our view is that in some important respects their objections are right and we were wrong".[249]

Wikipedia determination of unreliability

[edit]

In February 2017, after a formal community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source, in most cases.[250][251][252] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",[253][250][254] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability.[250] The Daily Mail can still be used as a source in an about-self fashion, when the Daily Mail itself is the subject of discussion.[255][256] Support for the ban centered on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[253][250][251] Some users opposed the decision, arguing that it is "actually reliable for some subjects" and "may have been more reliable historically."[257] The Daily Mail thus became the first deprecated source.[252]

Wikipedia's ban of the Daily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[256] Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice, saying: "I think what [the Daily Mail has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world, they've mastered the art of clickbait, they've mastered the art of hyped-up headlines. They've also mastered the art of—I'm sad to say—of running stories that simply aren't true. And that's why Wikipedia decided not to accept them as a source anymore. It's very problematic, they get very upset when we say this, but it's just fact."[258] A February 2017 editorial in The Times on the decision said: "Newspapers make errors and have the responsibility to correct them. Wikipedia editors' fastidiousness, however, appears to reflect less a concern for accuracy than dislike of the Daily Mail's opinions."[259] Slate writer Will Oremus said the decision "should encourage more careful sourcing across Wikipedia while doubling as a richly deserved rebuke to a publication that represents some of the worst forces in online news."[257]

In 2018, the Wikipedia community reaffirmed the Daily Mail's deprecation as a source.[256] In November 2020, Daily Mail sister paper The Mail on Sunday was also deprecated.[260]

Racism accusations

[edit]

There have been accusations of racism against the Daily Mail.[261] In 2012, in an article for The New Yorker, former Mail reporter Brendan Montague criticised the Mail's content and culture, stating: "None of the front-line reporters I worked with were racist, but there's institutional racism [at the Daily Mail]".[17]

In August 2020, a group of Palm Islanders in Queensland, Australia, lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 against the Daily Mail and 9News, alleging that they had broadcast and published reports that were inaccurate and racist about the Indigenous Australian recipients of compensation after the Palm Island Class Action.[262][263][264][265]

In 2021, IPSO ruled that the Daily Mail dishonestly published a headline falsely claiming to report on "British towns that are no-go areas for white people".[266] The town showcased was the wealthy Manchester suburb of Didsbury, which it had described the previous month as "posh and leafy" and a "property hotspot".[267]

Supplements and features

[edit]
  • City & Finance: The business part of the Daily Mail, featuring City news and the results from the London Stock Exchange. It also has its own award-winning website called This is Money,[268] which describes itself as the "money section of the MailOnline."[269]
  • Travelmail: Contains travel articles, advertisements etc.
  • Femail: Femail is an extensive part of the Daily Mail's newspaper and website, being one of four main features on MailOnline others being News, TV & Showbiz and Sport. It is designed for women.
  • Weekend: The Daily Mail Weekend is a TV guide published by the Daily Mail, included free with the Mail every Saturday. Weekend magazine, launched in October 1993, is issued free with the Saturday Daily Mail. The guide does not use a magazine-type layout but chooses a newspaper style similar to the Daily Mail itself. In April 2007, the Weekend had a major revamp. A feature changed during the revamp was a dedicated Freeview channel page.

Regular cartoon strips

[edit]
  • Garfield
  • I Don't Believe It (discontinued)
  • Odd Streak
  • The Strip Show
  • Chloe and Co. (by Knight Features)
  • Up and Running (by Knight Features)
  • Fred Basset

Up and Running is a strip distributed by Knight Features and Fred Basset has followed the life of the dog of the same name in a two-part strip in the Daily Mail since 8 July 1963.[270]

The long-running Teddy Tail cartoon strip, was first published on 5 April 1915 and was the first cartoon strip in a British newspaper.[271] It ran for over 40 years to 1960, spawning the Teddy Tail League Children's Club and many annuals from 1934 to 1942 and again from 1949 to 1962. Teddy Tail was a mouse, with friends Kitty Puss (a cat), Douglas Duck and Dr. Beetle. Teddy Tail is always shown with a knot in his tail.[272][273]

Year Book

[edit]

The Daily Mail Year Book first appeared in 1901, summarising the news of the past year in one volume of 200 to 400 pages. Among its editors were Percy L. Parker (1901–1905), David Williamson (1914–1951), G. B. Newman (1955–1977), Mary Jenkins (1978–1986), P.J. Failes (1987), and Michael and Caroline Fluskey (1991).

Online media

[edit]

The majority of content appearing in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday printed newspapers also forms part of that included in the MailOnline website. MailOnline is free to read and funded by advertising. In 2011 MailOnline was the second most visited English-language newspaper website worldwide.[274][275] It has since then become the most visited newspaper website in the world,[276] with over 189.5 million visitors per month, and 11.7 million visitors daily, as of January 2014.[277]

Thailand's military junta blocked the MailOnline in May 2014 after the site revealed a video of Thailand's Crown Prince and his wife, Princess Srirasmi, partying. The video appears to show the allegedly topless princess, a former waitress, in a tiny G-string as she feeds her pet dog cake to celebrate its birthday.[278]

The Daily Mail in pop culture

[edit]

In 1966 The Beatles released the song Paperback Writer in which the protagonist worked for the Daily Mail. Discussing Paperback Writer with Alan Smith of the NME that year, McCartney recalled that he and John Lennon wrote the lyrics in the form of a letter beginning with "Dear Sir or Madam", but that the song was not inspired by "any real-life characters".[279] However, according to a 2007 piece in The New Yorker, McCartney said he started writing the song in 1965 after reading in the Daily Mail about an aspiring author, "possibly Martin Amis" (who would have been a teenager at the time). The Daily Mail was Lennon's regular newspaper and copies were in Lennon's Weybridge home when Lennon and McCartney were writing songs.[280]

The Daily Mail has appeared in several novels. These include Evelyn Waugh's 1938 novel Scoop which was based on Waugh's experiences as a writer for the Daily Mail. In the book the newspaper is renamed The Daily Beast.[281]

The newspaper appeared in Nicci French's 2008 novel The Memory Game, a psychological thriller.[282]

In 2015, it featured in Laurence Simpson's comic novel about the tabloid media, According to The Daily Mail.[283]

Editors

[edit]

Source:[284]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia

The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid founded on 4 May 1896 by Alfred Harmsworth, later 1st Viscount Northcliffe, and his brother Harold Harmsworth, with the aim of appealing to a broad audience through accessible journalism. Published in by , a of the (DMGT) controlled by the Rothermere family under chairman , it maintains a conservative stance that resonates with a readership majority female (52–55%).
As of 2025, the Daily Mail sustains an average print circulation of around 650,000 copies daily, defying broader industry declines, while its digital counterpart draws nearly 200 million monthly visits, underscoring its dominance in online news engagement. Edited by since 2021, the publication blends political commentary, investigative reporting, and lifestyle content, pioneering mass-market formats and innovations like wartime fundraising efforts that boosted Allied causes during . The Daily Mail has shaped public discourse through campaigns on issues like and government accountability, achieving record sales milestones, yet it has drawn persistent criticism for sensational headlines, selective reporting favoring conservative views, and historical alignments such as support for policies in , though such rebukes often emanate from ideologically opposed media outlets with their own documented biases.

Overview

Founding Principles and Core Characteristics

The Daily Mail was established on 4 May 1896 by Alfred Harmsworth, later Viscount Northcliffe, as Britain's first halfpenny mass-circulation newspaper, priced at one halfpenny to reach working-class and middle-class readers previously underserved by costlier broadsheets. Harmsworth's explicit goal was to create an accessible publication for the "busy man," emphasizing short paragraphs, bold headlines, and a blend of hard news, human-interest stories, and leisure content to deliver "bright, invigorating" information efficiently into ordinary homes. This approach marked a departure from traditional elite journalism, prioritizing public appetite over academic depth and pioneering techniques like serialized fiction, women's columns, and illustrated features to boost daily engagement. At its core, the newspaper embodied a conservative, pro-empire editorial outlook reflective of Harmsworth's instincts for popular sentiment, with early coverage championing British imperial expansion, military prowess, and national pride—evident in its enthusiastic support for events like the and the Second Boer War. The founding principles stressed empirical reporting on verifiable events, such as foreign affairs and technological advances, while incorporating sensational elements to drive sales; Harmsworth described the paper's object as amusing and interesting readers during leisure moments, fostering a format that combined factual dispatches with narrative flair to sustain broad readership. This dual focus on truth-oriented news and mass entertainment established a template for middle-market , achieving record circulation of 238,000 copies within months of launch by appealing to causal drivers of like empire-building and everyday utility rather than abstract ideologies. The Daily Mail's inherent characteristics included a commitment to in production and distribution, such as early adoption of and streamlined printing, which enabled rapid response to breaking events and differentiated it from slower competitors. Politically, it maintained an independent yet reliably right-leaning stance from , skeptical of and favoring domestic stability and imperial realism, though Harmsworth's personal influence ensured flexibility in aligning with perceived national imperatives over rigid partisanship. These traits, grounded in Harmsworth's first-hand market observations rather than institutional dogma, propelled the paper's longevity, though they later drew critiques for amplifying jingoistic narratives amid evolving media standards.

History

Establishment and Expansion (1896–1914)

The Daily Mail was launched on 4 May 1896 by brothers Alfred Harmsworth (later 1st Viscount Northcliffe) and Harold Harmsworth (later 1st ), who had previously built success with periodicals like Answers and acquired the Evening News in 1894. Priced at one halfpenny—the lowest for any daily at the time—the paper adopted a compact format emphasizing short, accessible articles, bold headlines, and extensive illustrations to appeal to a mass working- and middle-class audience described as "busy men" seeking efficient news consumption. The inaugural issue sold 397,215 copies, exceeding expectations and signaling immediate viability in a market dominated by pricier competitors like . Circulation expanded rapidly in the ensuing years, reaching 500,000 daily copies within months and surpassing one million by 1900, driven by sensational coverage of the Second Boer War (1899–1902), which aligned with imperial patriotism and boosted demand through vivid reporting and embedded correspondents. Innovations such as reliance on wire services for timely dispatches, serialized fiction, and human-interest features differentiated it from staid rivals, while aggressive marketing—including street sales teams—capitalized on rising and in late Victorian Britain. By 1902, the paper had prompted competitors to lower prices and adopt similar styles, consolidating its position as a pioneer of popular . Through the up to 1914, the Daily Mail further entrenched its influence by championing naval expansion and tariff reform debates, with Alfred Harmsworth leveraging editorial control to shape public discourse on empire and trade. Circulation stabilized above one million, commanding about 40% of Britain's morning under Northcliffe's oversight, though this dominance drew criticism for prioritizing spectacle over depth. The paper's formula—combining news, , and from consumer goods—proved resilient amid economic fluctuations, setting the stage for wartime mobilization.

World Wars and Interwar Period (1914–1945)

During the First World War, the Daily Mail, under the direction of owner Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, played a significant role in bolstering British war support through aggressive journalism and government influence. Northcliffe's newspapers, including the Daily Mail, exposed the British Army's shell shortage in May 1915, criticizing Prime Minister H. H. Asquith's administration for inadequate munitions production, which contributed to the formation of a new coalition government and the Ministry of Munitions under David Lloyd George. This campaign highlighted the paper's capacity to shape public and political opinion, with Northcliffe later appointed Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries in 1918, leveraging his media empire to promote Allied efforts. The Daily Mail also initiated practical support measures, such as the Zeppelin Fund in response to German air raids beginning in 1915. This initiative provided compensation—£200 for each registered reader killed by aerial bombardment, plus benefits for dependents—to mitigate civilian fears and demonstrate solidarity, advertised via posters and integrated into subscriptions. Circulation remained robust, exceeding one million daily copies, fueled by war-related content that emphasized patriotic themes and German atrocities. In the , following Northcliffe's death in 1922, his brother , assumed control, maintaining high circulation figures that reached approximately two million by 1926. Politically, the paper under Rothermere endorsed the led by , publishing the headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" on January 7, 1934, praising the movement as a youthful alternative to established parties amid economic discontent. Rothermere, who met and viewed as a defense against , directed favorable coverage of the regime from , including congratulations on its parliamentary gains and downplaying early antisemitic policies as necessary for order. This stance aligned with broader sentiments in the 1930s, reflecting Rothermere's advocacy for avoiding conflict with to preserve British interests. With the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the Daily Mail abandoned and rallied behind the Allied cause, supporting Winston Churchill's leadership and the national war effort despite earlier divergences. Wartime production adapted to shortages, with operations in continuing under blackout conditions and paper rationing, as depicted in photographs from 1944 showing compositors and printing processes. The paper provided extensive coverage of key events, including the on June 6, 1944, framing them as pivotal to liberating Europe from Nazi occupation. Circulation sustained influence amid restrictions, contributing to morale through reports on battles and resilience.

Post-War Reconstruction and Modernization (1945–1990)

Following the conclusion of , the Daily Mail contended with persistent newsprint rationing, which had constrained its format to just four pages throughout the conflict, yet its readership proved resilient with a circulation of 2,076,000 reported in 1947. As restrictions lifted progressively into the , the expanded its and content volume, enabling fuller coverage of domestic reconstruction, economic recovery, and emerging consumer trends amid Britain's . This period also saw the launch of a dedicated Scottish edition in 1946, enhancing regional penetration and adapting to devolved news demands in a manner that supported overall stability under the stewardship of , who had assumed control of the Associated Newspapers group following his father's death in 1940. By the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Daily Mail capitalized on competitive consolidations, notably absorbing the —once a rival with comparable circulation—along with its associated titles on 18 October 1960, which integrated additional journalistic resources and readership bases strained by television's rise and shifting public tastes. Circulation reached a peak of 2,610,000 in 1961, underscoring the paper's appeal to middle-class audiences seeking concise, illustrated reporting on , society, and lifestyle amid under Conservative governments. However, by the mid-1960s, figures began to soften to 2,318,000 in 1966, reflecting broader industry pressures from broadcast media and labor disputes, though the Mail maintained a leading position among popular dailies through targeted features on modernization themes like technological innovation and suburban affluence. A pivotal modernization occurred in 1971, when the Daily Mail relaunched on 3 May—marking its 75th —in a compact format akin to tabloid dimensions for improved portability and readability, while merging with the faltering on 11 May to streamline operations and capture its remaining audience of approximately 700,000. This shift, overseen by the Rothermere family as Esmond's health declined ahead of his 1978 death, emphasized visual appeal and faster production to counter intensifying rivalry from full tabloids like the Sun. Circulation fluctuated thereafter, climbing to 1,948,000 by 1980 before settling at 1,759,000 in 1987, buoyed by investigative scoops and columnists but challenged by union resistances to automation in printing. , assumed chairmanship in 1978, steering further efficiencies that positioned the title for digital-era transitions beyond 1990.

Digital Transformation and Contemporary Developments (1990–Present)

In the 1990s, (DMGT) began exploring digital media through the establishment of Associated New Media in 1995, investing millions in early online ventures such as ThisisLondon.co.uk, though the flagship Daily Mail remained print-focused and was among the last major newspapers to fully commit to the . , the newspaper's primary digital platform, launched in December 2003 under the leadership of Associated Newspapers' digital division, marking a strategic shift toward online content aggregation and celebrity-driven stories to attract a broader audience beyond traditional print readers. This late entry contrasted with competitors' earlier adoptions but leveraged the Mail's sensationalist style for rapid growth, with the site expanding to include U.S.-focused content by 2010 and a dedicated New York newsroom opening in 2012. By the , had emerged as a dominant force in digital news, surpassing many peers in traffic and revenue; in , it projected a 59% increase in global digital ad revenue to $72 million, fueled by high-engagement formats like slideshows and viral articles that drove millions of monthly unique visitors. The platform's audience swelled to over 218 million unique monthly visitors by 2020, establishing it as the world's leading English-language newspaper website and contributing significantly to DMGT's consumer media profits through and syndication. This growth was attributed to content strategies prioritizing shareable, entertainment-oriented over paywalls initially, though it drew criticism for prioritizing clicks over depth, as evidenced by its reliance on U.S. traffic amid declining UK print circulation. In the 2020s, DMGT—rebranded as —accelerated its digital pivot amid falling print ads and rising operational costs, launching the premium subscription service Mail+ in the in 2023, followed by rollouts in and , with a target of one million digital subscribers by October 2028. This strategy addressed a 3% year-on-year digital ad decline by emphasizing ad-free access, exclusive content, and video formats, yielding a 34% rise in consumer media operating profits to £53 million for the year ending September 2024. Concurrently, the Mail enhanced presence, ramping up output from 2020 to capitalize on short-form video, while consolidating digital brands under a unified global rebrand in July 2025 to streamline operations and boost direct subscriptions. Challenges included an 89% traffic drop from AI-driven search changes in 2025 and broader ad market pressures, prompting diversification into podcasts and events. Despite these, maintained strong metrics, with dailymail.co.uk recording nearly 200 million monthly visits in the by September 2025.

Ownership and Business Model

Ownership Structure and Family Control

The Daily Mail is published by , the consumer media division of plc (DMGT), which was taken private in December 2021 following a £2.7 billion led by Rothermere Continuation Limited (RCL), the family investment vehicle. This transaction allowed the Rothermere family to acquire the remaining public shares, achieving full ownership of DMGT and thereby consolidating control over , including titles such as the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, i, and Metro. Prior to the , the family held approximately 30% of DMGT's economic interest but controlled nearly all voting through a dual-class share structure, ensuring strategic oversight despite minority public ownership. Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, chairs both DMGT and dmg media, having assumed the role of chief executive of dmg media in September 2022 to direct operational strategy amid digital shifts and acquisition pursuits. Family control is exercised through RCL, governed by a discretionary trust established for the benefit of Viscount Rothermere and his immediate family members, which holds 100% of DMGT's shares post-privatization. This structure traces to the company's founding in 1896 by Alfred and Harold Harmsworth (later 1st Viscount Northcliffe and 1st Viscount Rothermere), with generational succession maintaining hereditary dominance: the 2nd Viscount (Esmond Harmsworth) from 1940 to 1978, the 3rd (Vere Harmsworth) until 1998, and the current 4th Viscount thereafter. The privatization eliminated public shareholder influence, aligning governance with long-term family priorities over short-term market pressures, as evidenced by sustained investments in digital platforms like MailOnline despite print circulation declines. The Daily Mail's print circulation peaked at over 2.5 million copies daily in the late 1930s and remained above 2 million through much of the late , but has since experienced a sustained decline amid broader industry shifts toward . By 2022, average daily sales fell below 900,000 for the first time since the 1920s, reflecting structural challenges such as reduced and competition from online news sources. ABC-certified figures for 2025 report an average monthly circulation of 625,221 copies, down approximately 17.5% from 2022 levels in line with the national daily newspaper average drop over that period. Parallel to print declines, the Daily Mail has expanded its digital reach through , which generates billions of monthly pageviews and ranks among the world's most visited English-language news websites. Digital replica editions and subscription models like Mail+ have supplemented traditional metrics, with actively viewed digital copies averaging over 80,000 monthly as of 2024, though these remain a fraction of overall driven by . This pivot has offset print losses by attracting a global audience, particularly in the , where digital consumer revenues are projected to outpace ad growth. Financially, —the parent entity controlling the Daily Mail—reported group of £1.1 billion for fiscal year 2024, an 11% increase from the prior year, fueled by digital advertising expansion and cost efficiencies. Pre-tax profits swung to £6 million from a £13 million loss in 2023, supported by restructurings such as those at sister title Metro, which achieved profitability in 2024 after 2023 changes. Analysts project a 5% rise and 13% profit increase for the year ending September 2025, with EBITDA net leverage improving to 1.6x from 2.1x in 2023 due to sustained digital and operational leverage. These gains demonstrate resilience despite print erosion, as diversified streams—including subscriptions and events—have stabilized performance under family-controlled ownership.

Revenue Streams and Digital Pivot

DMG Media, the parent company of the Daily Mail, derives its primary revenue from circulation of its print editions, including the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, which generated £247 million in 2023 across DMGT's media segments. in print formats has historically contributed significantly, though it declined from 11% to 10% of overall DMGT revenue proportions in 2024 amid broader industry pressures on . These streams reflect the legacy model established since the newspaper's founding, emphasizing mass-market appeal to sustain high-volume and ad placements from brands targeting middle-class demographics. The digital pivot accelerated in the with the launch and expansion of , which became a global traffic leader through sensationalist, celebrity-driven content optimized for search and social sharing, initially monetized via display that reached £76 million in the six months to March 2019. Facing ad revenue volatility, including a 3% year-on-year digital ad decline by early 2024, shifted toward diversified models, introducing the Mail+ partial in 2023 to capture subscription income, surpassing 250,000 digital subscribers by mid-2025. This includes premium content access, newsletters, and app features, with a stated goal of one million paying digital subscribers by October 2028, supported by a 2025 global rebrand consolidating under the Daily Mail masthead to unify branding and loyalty programs. Further adaptation involves programmatic and direct-sold digital ads, alongside emerging video monetization on platforms like and , where invested in dedicated teams for and content creation by October 2025 to tap younger audiences and generate ad revenue from short-form videos. Subscriptions now form one of five core monetization streams, complemented by affiliate partnerships and integrations, as outlined in DMGT's , reflecting a strategic reduction in ad dependency from 28% to 25% of total revenue proportions. This evolution has contributed to DMGT's overall revenue growth to £1.1 billion in , with digital channels offsetting print declines through higher engagement metrics and targeted personalization.

International and Specialized Editions

Regional Variants (Scottish, Irish, and Overseas)

The Scottish edition of the Daily Mail was introduced in to cater to readers north of the border with tailored content reflecting local Scottish news, politics, and events, while maintaining the parent paper's editorial style and national coverage. Printed separately and distributed primarily in , it addressed regional interests such as devolved governance issues post-1999 establishment, though specific circulation data for the edition remains limited in public records. This variant emerged amid post-World War II efforts to consolidate readership in the UK amid rising competition from local titles like the Daily Record. The Irish Daily Mail, launched on 31 August 2006, operates as a distinct edition published in by DMG Media Ireland, a of (DMGT), under family control of the Rothermeres. It features -specific reporting on , economy, and society, alongside UK and international stories, positioning itself as a conservative-leaning tabloid in a market dominated by outlets like the . With an initial print run targeting urban professionals, it has sustained operations despite digital shifts, emphasizing print alongside online access via MailOnline Ireland adaptations. Overseas variants trace back to early 20th-century expansions, with the Overseas Daily Mail debuting in 1904 to serve British expatriates globally through distribution of customized editions featuring imperial news and travel reports. Complementing this, the Continental Daily Mail launched in 1905 targeted Europe-based readers with localized inserts on continental affairs, both editions leveraging the paper's growing reputation for accessible journalism amid the British Empire's peak. These print efforts waned post-World War II with and rising costs, transitioning to digital formats; contemporary overseas reach occurs via geo-targeted sections for the (since 2011) and (since 2013), which localize celebrity, , and content without separate print runs.

Specialized Publications (e.g., Mail Today)

Mail Today was launched in 2007 as a compact tabloid targeting urban readers in , developed through a partnership between the Group and the publishers of the British Daily Mail. The publication adopted a tabloid format similar to the Daily Mail, emphasizing concise news coverage, lifestyle features, and investigative stories tailored to the Indian market, with initial distribution focused on . It succeeded the Today , previously operated by the Group, and aimed to capture the growing demand for quick-read, high-impact journalism in emerging urban centers. The newspaper distinguished itself with a broadsheet-sized but tabloid-style content delivery, including syndicated columns and a mix of national politics, Bollywood entertainment, and consumer advice, often mirroring the Daily Mail's blend of serious reporting and populist appeal. By 2010, it expanded circulation beyond Delhi to cities like and Bangalore, achieving peak daily sales estimated at over 200,000 copies through aggressive marketing and integration with the India Today Group's media ecosystem. However, it faced competition from and other tabloids, leading to fluctuating advertising revenue amid India's shifting print landscape. In August 2020, amid the pandemic's economic fallout, the India Today Group discontinued the print edition of Mail Today, citing unsustainable operations and a pivot to digital platforms. The closure resulted in layoffs for several staff members and marked the end of Delhi's primary tabloid-format daily, though some content migrated to online formats under the broader India Today umbrella. This venture represented an early attempt by Daily Mail publishers to adapt their brand for international markets via licensed collaborations, though it did not lead to further specialized print editions in the region.

Editorial Stance and Political Orientation

Historical and Current Positions

The Daily Mail, launched on 4 May 1896 by brothers Alfred and Harold Harmsworth (later Lord Northcliffe), adopted an imperialist and patriotic stance from inception, emphasizing British Empire interests and appealing to middle-class readers wary of socialism. It critiqued Liberal governments during the Anglo-German naval arms race and supported Conservative causes, exemplified by its publication of the forged Zinoviev letter on 25 October 1924, which warned of communist infiltration and contributed to Labour's electoral defeat days later. During World War I, the paper ardently backed the Allied effort, launching the "Zeppelin Fund" in September 1914 to finance airships for bombing German positions, raising substantial public contributions. In the interwar years, under proprietor , the Daily Mail showed sympathy for authoritarian regimes, praising Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's early governance while endorsing Oswald Mosley's in the 7 January 1934 front-page article "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!", which hailed fascism's discipline as a model for Britain. This alignment shifted by the late amid escalating European tensions, with the paper condemning Nazi aggression post-Kristallnacht and supporting Winston Churchill's war leadership after 1940. Post-World War II, it opposed Clement Attlee's Labour government and its nationalizations, consistently endorsing Conservatives in elections, including strong backing for Margaret Thatcher's reforms during the 1980s, such as and anti-union measures. In contemporary times, the Daily Mail maintains a right-leaning orientation, prioritizing national , controlled , and skepticism toward supranational institutions, as evidenced by its long campaign against EU expansion—labeling the draft European Constitution a " for tyranny" in 2003—and advocacy for ahead of the 2016 referendum. It has supported Conservative leaders like and on key issues, though critiquing deviations such as perceived softness on cultural changes, while opposing Labour under figures like and for policies on , Iraq involvement, and economic interventionism. Public perception and media analyses consistently rate it as the United Kingdom's most right-wing major newspaper.

Assessments of Bias and Empirical Evaluations

Independent media bias rating organizations have assessed the Daily Mail as right-leaning in its editorial stance. Media Bias Rating, derived from expert analysis and a blind bias survey of 771 respondents across the , classifies the Daily Mail as "Right," with a weighted average score of 3.73 on a scale where positive values indicate rightward ; Democrats and independents rated it as Right, while Republicans rated it Lean Right. , using a involving analyst ratings of article language, word choice, and sourcing, assigns the Daily Mail a score of approximately 4.0 to 4.6, placing it slightly right of on a -42 (left) to +42 (right) scale. rates it as Right Biased, citing consistent promotion of conservative causes such as support, skepticism toward immigration policies, and criticism of left-wing figures, though this assessment originates from evaluators who have faced scrutiny for their own interpretive frameworks in classifying . Empirical evaluations of factual accuracy reveal mixed performance, with recurring issues in sensationalism and sourcing but instances of corrective action. NewsGuard, a rating service employing human analysts to score sites on nine credibility criteria including transparency and , initially deemed the Daily Mail unreliable (red rating) in 2018 due to frequent misleading headlines and promotion, but upgraded it to a rating in early 2019 following improvements in labeling opinion content and reducing unverified claims; by 2024, its score stood at 64.5 out of 100, reflecting ongoing concerns over failed and without disclosure. Media Bias/Fact Check documents multiple failed fact checks, including exaggerations in health and crime reporting, leading to a "Questionable" overall rating based on poor sourcing from anonymous or low-quality outlets. Academic analyses, often conducted within institutions exhibiting systemic left-leaning tendencies, highlight selective framing in coverage of issues like , where a 2023 London School of Economics review identified misleading downplaying of through opinion pieces presented as news, exploiting gaps in self-regulation under the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO). Quantitative studies on in UK media provide contextual evidence of the Daily Mail's orientation without isolating it definitively. A Press Gazette analysis of audience reach showed right-leaning outlets like the Daily Mail commanding significant digital traffic—over 100 million monthly visitors—compared to left-leaning counterparts, suggesting influence aligned with conservative demographics rather than balanced representation. Broader surveys from 2018 indicate low overall trust in (32% trust most news), with partisan divides where conservative readers perceive outlets like the Daily Mail as more aligned with empirical realities on topics like and EU policies, countering academia's frequent portrayal of such coverage as ideologically driven . These evaluations underscore that while the Daily Mail exhibits rightward bias through editorial choices, claims of systemic inaccuracy must account for its adherence to IPSO rulings—upholding 70-80% of complaints in annual reports—and corrections issued, distinguishing it from outlets with higher unsubstantiated error rates.

Notable Reporting and Campaigns

Investigative Breakthroughs and Scoops

The Daily Mail has produced several high-impact investigative scoops that exposed security vulnerabilities, , and institutional misconduct, often leading to policy changes or legal actions. In October 2023, reporters revealed a major data leak at the Ministry of Defence, where sensitive personal information—including names, addresses, and details—of over 10,000 Afghan nationals who aided British forces was inadvertently published online, heightening risks of reprisals. This exclusive prompted an immediate MOD investigation and internal reforms to safeguard relocation scheme data. Veteran crime reporter Stephen Wright's 2023 series on networks infiltrating the drug trade earned him Journalist of the Year at the British Press Awards. His month-long undercover probe in traced shipments controlled by Albanian gangs, detailing how they dominated and crack markets through violence and corruption, with estimates of billions in annual profits laundered via businesses; the reporting contributed to heightened police scrutiny of Albanian syndicates. In April 2023, undercover journalist Sabrina Miller infiltrated activists, exposing their coordinated plot to sabotage the Grand National horse race by gluing themselves to fences and targeting jumps, which risked and public safety. Her revelations, published days before the event, led to preemptive arrests of 10 plotters and enhanced security, earning her Young Journalist of the Year at for demonstrating proactive disruption of eco-activist extremism. Earlier, a 2016 probe into charity cold-calling scams uncovered how aggressive telemarketers—often linked to major firms—pressured vulnerable donors, extracting over £100 million annually through misleading tactics and high-pressure scripts. The series, which included sting operations and whistleblower accounts, won the Campaign of the Year at and spurred Charity Commission guidelines on fundraising ethics, reducing reported complaints by 20% in subsequent years.

Political and Social Campaigns

The Daily Mail has historically engaged in political campaigns aligned with its conservative editorial stance, notably opposing aspects of . During the 2016 EU referendum, the newspaper published the highest volume of pro-Leave articles among major UK dailies, emphasizing sovereignty and immigration control as key motivations for . Its coverage framed Remain supporters, including high court judges ruling on Article 50 invocation, as "enemies of the people," a that drew widespread criticism for undermining but reflected the paper's populist appeal to its readership. Post-referendum, the Daily Mail continued advocating against EU free movement proposals, arguing they would undermine the vote's intent on . In earlier decades, the paper's campaigns included resistance to Indian independence in the 1920s and 1930s, framing it as a threat to British imperial interests, though this stance has been critiqued for prioritizing colonial preservation over . More recently, the Daily Mail has critiqued left-leaning political figures and policies, such as Labour's handling of migration and economic issues, often through sustained editorial pressure rather than standalone initiatives. On social issues, the Daily Mail has initiated environmental campaigns targeting . In 2008, it launched a "crusade" to reduce usage, contributing to broader policy shifts like the UK's 5p carrier bag charge introduced in 2015, which saw bag consumption drop by over 95% in by 2019. This effort expanded into the "Great Plastic Pick Up" initiative, encouraging public cleanups and highlighting impacts, with the paper reporting a 7 billion annual reduction in bag usage attributable to heightened awareness. Health and safety campaigns include a national push to ban in buildings, launched in collaboration with advocacy groups to address ongoing deaths from legacy exposure, estimated at 4,000 annually in the UK as of the campaign's inception. In 2025, the paper spearheaded a campaign against unregulated AI training on creative works without consent, garnering support from figures like and , who argued it threatened artists' livelihoods amid advancing generative technologies. These efforts underscore the Daily Mail's pattern of mobilizing on tangible risks, though critics from academic and progressive media circles contend such campaigns selectively amplify conservative priorities while downplaying systemic factors like corporate responsibility.

Scientific and Health Reporting Controversies

The Daily Mail faced significant backlash for its extensive coverage of claims linking the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine to autism, spearheaded by Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study published in The Lancet. The newspaper published over 700 articles in 1998 alone emphasizing potential risks, contributing to a sharp decline in UK vaccination rates from 92% in 1995 to 80% by 2003, which facilitated measles outbreaks affecting thousands, including at least three fatalities between 2006 and 2013. Critics, including medical journals, argued that the Daily Mail's persistent negative framing ignored emerging evidence debunking the link, such as large-scale epidemiological studies confirming no causal connection, and failed to adequately highlight Wakefield's ethical violations and financial conflicts, leading to his 2010 striking off the UK medical register. While the paper later acknowledged the study's retraction in 2010, it did not issue a formal apology for amplifying parental fears, prompting accusations of irresponsibility in health journalism. In climate science reporting, the Daily Mail has been accused of disseminating misleading narratives that downplay anthropogenic warming, such as a article claiming world leaders were "duped" by manipulated NOAA data, which regulators like the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) later deemed inaccurate for misrepresenting adjustments in records. Similar critiques arose in 2023 coverage of IPCC reports, where the paper allegedly cherry-picked studies to suggest exaggerated warming projections, exploiting lax press regulations to avoid corrections despite empirical consensus from datasets like HadCRUT showing consistent global rises of approximately 1.1°C since pre-industrial levels. These instances drew fire from academic bodies for prioritizing skeptical viewpoints over peer-reviewed syntheses, potentially eroding public trust in established models validated by multiple independent observations. Broader patterns in health and stories have fueled claims of , including exaggerated risks from nanoparticles in reported in 2010, where headlines warned of a "" expansion despite regulatory approvals based on toxicity assessments showing minimal human health threats at approved levels. During the , a 2020 article distorted government data on infection rates, prompting rebukes for inaccuracies that could undermine measures, though the Daily Mail maintained its reporting reflected legitimate scrutiny of . Such episodes underscore recurring criticisms from outlets like The BMJ that the paper's emphasis on alarming interpretations often amplifies preliminary or fringe findings over robust meta-analyses, correlating with lower factual accuracy ratings in science journalism audits compared to broadsheet peers.

Successful Defenses and Victories

In November 2024, the ruled in favor of Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail, in a challenge to the 's , Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) provisions on "success fees" in conditional fee agreements for and claims. The court found that the regime, which allowed claimants' lawyers to recover up to double their base fees from defendants upon success, violated Article 10 of the by imposing a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression, particularly for media defendants mounting robust defenses in meritorious cases. This stemmed from two prior proceedings—one a 2019 privacy claim by the Duchess of Sussex and another a case—where the publisher incurred costs exceeding £500,000 despite prevailing on key defenses, highlighting systemic pressures on press resources. In December 2020, the dismissed a claim by motorsport executive against Associated Newspapers, rejecting allegations that the Daily Mail had abused legal processes by supporting parliamentary efforts to introduce privacy injunctions following Mosley's 2008 privacy victory over the . Mr Justice Nicklin ruled that the publisher's advocacy for balanced privacy reforms did not constitute an improper collateral attack on prior judgments or ulterior motive to harm Mosley personally, upholding the newspaper's engagement in policy debates as legitimate. In a March 2020 preliminary ruling, a judge sided with Associated Newspapers in a action brought by property development firm Watkin Jones over a Mail on Sunday article criticizing a project. The court determined that the article's meaning—that the project involved "buy-to-leave" speculation rather than the claimed "buy-to-let" for affordable rentals—did not lower the claimants' reputation to the defamatory level alleged, supporting the publisher's honest opinion defense and narrowing the case scope.

Adverse Rulings and Settlements

Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Daily Mail, settled a libel claim brought by green energy entrepreneur in February 2025, agreeing to pay £40,000 in damages plus legal costs after an October 2023 article falsely alleged he had chanted support for at a pro-Palestine rally in . The settlement included an acknowledgment that the claim was untrue and defamatory, with no admission of malice by the publisher. In October 2024, Associated Newspapers settled a claim filed by artist , paying undisclosed damages over a series of articles from 2021 that disclosed details about her family, including her father's identity and her sibling's medical history, which the court preliminarily deemed intrusive. The publisher lost a misuse of private claim in Sicri v Associated Newspapers Ltd in December 2020, where the awarded £83,000 in damages to a man wrongly identified as the 16th suspect arrested in connection with the 2017 ; although not charged, articles published days after the attack revealed his name and image, causing distress despite arguments. Associated Newspapers successfully challenged the subsequent £822,000 costs order at the in November 2024, arguing it violated Article 10 free expression due to excessive "success fees" under conditional fee agreements, but the underlying ruling stood. In a 2019 libel case involving French aerospace engineer Bruno Lachaux, the Mail on Sunday was found liable for defamatory articles alleging his abusive behavior toward his son during a custody dispute; the awarded , with costs contributing to the ECHR challenge over recoverable fees. Earlier, in 2017, Associated Newspapers settled a libel suit by , paying substantial undisclosed and issuing an apology for a 2016 Daily Mail article insinuating she worked as an escort before marrying ; the piece cited unverified claims from a book, which the settlement deemed false. The awarded £65,000 in libel to businessman Andrew Miller in December 2012 over a 2010 Daily Mail article accusing him of involvement in a corrupt property deal linked to former chief ; Justice Sharp ruled the claims unsubstantiated and damaging to his reputation. In January 2022, following a ruling in favor of the Duchess of , Associated Newspapers paid £1 in nominal for breaching her privacy by publishing excerpts of a personal letter to her father in in 2019, alongside covering substantial legal costs; the court found no defense outweighed the intrusion, though the publisher contested the letter's authorship context. Associated Newspapers Limited, publisher of the Daily Mail, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google LLC on April 20, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging monopolistic practices in digital advertising that harmed the company's revenue and visibility. The complaint asserted that Google's control over search algorithms and ad auctions enabled it to demote links to Daily Mail stories while favoring its own services, thereby reducing referral traffic and ad earnings for independent publishers. In July 2023, the company announced preparations for further legal challenges against and other technology firms over the unauthorized scraping of its content—estimated at hundreds of thousands of articles—for training models, framing such uses as without compensation or permission. This initiative reflects broader efforts by news publishers to assert rights amid the rise of generative AI technologies. These actions demonstrate a strategy of offensive litigation to safeguard commercial interests in digital markets, distinct from defensive responses to or privacy claims. No major initiated proceedings by Associated Newspapers were identified in public records, consistent with the high evidentiary thresholds for newspapers pursuing libel claims against critics.

Criticisms, Defenses, and Reliability

Claims of Sensationalism and Inaccuracy

Critics have long accused the Daily Mail of , characterized by exaggerated headlines and alarmist framing of stories, particularly in , science, and coverage, to drive readership. For instance, in 2017, Wikipedia editors voted to blacklist the Daily Mail as a generally unreliable source, citing its "reputation for poor , , and flat-out fabrication." This decision followed analyses of articles deemed misleading, such as unsubstantiated claims linking everyday substances to cancer risks without robust . Similar concerns were raised by co-founder in 2017, who described the outlet as having "mastered the art of " through hyped headlines that distort underlying facts. The 's (IPSO) has upheld multiple complaints against the Daily Mail for breaching Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors' Code, requiring significant inaccuracies to be corrected promptly and with due prominence. In July 2025, IPSO ruled that a Daily Mail article falsely claiming "one in 12 living in is an illegal migrant" lacked sufficient , as it relied on unverified projections rather than official data, leading to an admonishment and required correction. Another upheld complaint in 2025 involved David Moore's case against a Mail Online piece that inaccurately portrayed a public figure's statements on , failing to reflect the full despite available records. In 2023, IPSO found a breach in an article by Bob Ward alleging the Daily Mail misrepresented climate science data on net zero costs, promoting misleading claims that experts had deemed exaggerated without balancing counter-. Fact-checking organizations have documented repeated inaccuracies, contributing to the outlet's low reliability ratings. , analyzing over 100 articles, rated the Daily Mail as having "numerous failed fact checks," including distortions in political and health reporting, such as overstated vaccine risks during the . Media's empirical review of hundreds of stories assigned it a reliability score below 40 on a 0-64 scale, indicating frequent issues with sourcing and verification compared to broadsheet peers. Historical examples include the 1924 Zinoviev Letter coverage, where the paper sensationalized a forged document to influence elections, later criticized as amplifying unverified for partisan effect. These patterns, opponents argue, prioritize over precision, eroding public trust as evidenced by a 2023 Reuters Institute survey showing only 26% of UK respondents trusting its news coverage.

Accusations of Bias and Ethical Lapses

The Daily Mail has been accused of maintaining a consistent right-wing , evidenced by its historical endorsements of the Conservative Party in UK general elections and advocacy for , as documented by media analysts. Independent bias assessments, including those from based on ratings from 771 individuals across the , place it firmly in the right-leaning category with a score of 3.73 out of 5. Critics, particularly from left-leaning publications, contend this manifests in disproportionate negative coverage of , environmental policies, and progressive social reforms, often prioritizing over balanced reporting. Such outlets, including , have highlighted instances of alleged misinformation on , though these claims arise amid broader ideological critiques of conservative media. Ethical accusations center on alleged unlawful newsgathering practices, most prominently and the use of private investigators for intrusive surveillance. Since 2022, , the Daily Mail's publisher, has faced multiple lawsuits claiming systematic interception and other privacy violations, including the first such action by former MP . High-profile claimants like Prince Harry, , and have advanced cases alleging tactics such as and blagging personal data, with a November 2023 High Court ruling allowing seven claims to proceed to trial scheduled for early 2026 after rejecting dismissal bids. The publisher denies systemic wrongdoing, asserting any issues were isolated and not comparable to scandals at other outlets, while countering that some claimant evidence was misleadingly presented in court. Regulatory scrutiny via the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), to which the Daily Mail subscribes, has resulted in multiple upheld complaints against for breaches of the Editors' Code, particularly Clause 1 on accuracy. In 2022, MailOnline recorded the highest number of such violations among newsbrands, with seven upheld rulings covering misleading and reporting. Earlier, in 2021, IPSO adjudicated 15 breaches, including partial upholds for factual inaccuracies. These findings, while not imposing fines, required and highlight recurring ethical concerns over sourcing and verification, though IPSO's self-regulatory nature—criticized by some as lenient—limits enforcement compared to statutory bodies.

Empirical Defenses and Comparative Reliability

Independent media rating organizations have provided empirical assessments of the Daily Mail's reliability based on systematic analysis of its content. , employing panels of left-, center-, and right-leaning analysts to evaluate hundreds of articles for veracity, headline accuracy, and sourcing, assigns the Daily Mail a reliability score of 30.83 on a 0-64 scale, placing it in the "mixed reliability" category indicative of variability rather than systemic fabrication or consistent inaccuracy. This score reflects a range across articles, with some hard pieces achieving scores above 40 (generally reliable) and opinion-oriented content scoring lower, such as 7.33 for a commentary on political scandals. Similarly, upgraded its rating of dailymail.co.uk from "red" (failing basic standards) to "" (credible) in 2019 following a , citing improvements in transparency, policy, and separation of from . These evaluations counter narratives of inherent unreliability by demonstrating adherence to journalistic criteria in a substantial portion of output, though variability persists due to the outlet's blend of factual reporting and interpretive pieces. Comparatively, the Daily Mail's reliability aligns with other popular UK tabloids but trails broadsheets in aggregate ratings from the same evaluators. Ad Fontes rates it as having minimal bias (4.59 on a -42 to +42 scale), more centrist than outlets like The Guardian (left-leaning) or The Telegraph (right-leaning), based on language neutrality and cross-source comparison. In public trust surveys, such as YouGov's 2023 poll of British adults, the Daily Mail scores a net trust of -37, comparable to the left-leaning Daily Mirror (-37) and better than The Star (-50), but lower than the BBC (net +23) or Financial Times (net +20). However, self-reported trust often correlates with ideological alignment—conservative readers rate right-leaning outlets higher—potentially inflating scores for establishment media like the BBC, which faces its own corrections for bias in coverage of topics like immigration and Brexit. Empirical content analyses, such as those examining UK press handling of research coverage, show tabloids like the Daily Mail occasionally simplify complex studies but do not deviate more from source material than broadsheets in verifiable distortions. No large-scale, peer-reviewed studies directly compare correction rates across UK newspapers, but regulatory data from the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) indicates the Daily Mail upholds a policy, issuing amendments for upheld complaints at rates consistent with its volume of output—over 1 million monthly unique visitors in print and online—without evidence of disproportionate inaccuracy relative to peers like The Sun or . Critics from left-leaning institutions often highlight as inaccuracy, yet blind ratings from diverse panels reveal factual cores in many disputed stories, suggesting evaluative in source selection by academics and fact-checkers who prioritize narrative alignment over raw verifiability. Thus, while not exemplary, the Daily Mail's empirical profile supports its role as a functional, if variable, source amid a UK media landscape where no major outlet achieves uniform excellence.

Supplements, Features, and Digital Presence

The Daily Mail distributes the Weekend magazine as its primary print supplement, included with the edition and boasting a weekly readership of 2.16 million, which contributes significantly to the newspaper's Saturday circulation. This glossy publication features lifestyle content, including celebrity interviews, fashion, and travel features, positioning it as the United Kingdom's most-read newspaper supplement. In addition to Weekend, the Daily Mail occasionally incorporates A4-sized supplements focused on specific themes, such as financial or scientific topics, though these are less frequent than the core Weekend offering. Subscriptions to the print edition bundle these supplements with the main , enhancing reader engagement through specialized content. The has a of serialized content, particularly exclusive excerpts from books, often prioritizing investigative or biographical works with high public interest. For instance, in 2025, it serialized portions of Andrew Lownie's Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the , a biography detailing Prince Andrew's controversies, which drew significant attention for its revelations on dynamics. Similarly, in 2021, it featured serializations from Nick Wallis's book on the scandal, amplifying coverage of the Horizon IT system failures that affected subpostmasters. Other examples include the 2020 serialization of short stories by author and, in 2025, extracts from The Royal Insider by an unnamed author focusing on post-Queen palace intrigues. These serializations typically span multiple days, excerpting key chapters to drive sales of the full book while integrating seamlessly with the paper's news-driven narrative on scandals and public figures.

Online Platforms and Multimedia

MailOnline, the digital extension of the Daily Mail, operates primarily through dailymail.co.uk, which attracts substantial global traffic as one of the leading English-language websites. In September 2025, the site recorded approximately 200 million monthly visits in the , ranking it fourth in the News & Media Publishers category worldwide and 218th overall. It has maintained status as the largest UK site by audience in multiple periods, including four consecutive months reported in May 2025, with high user engagement metrics such as time spent per session. The platform emphasizes multimedia-rich content, including , imagery, and viral videos, tailored for rapid digital consumption. The site launched in 2003 as Associated Newspapers' entry into online publishing, initially mirroring print content before evolving into a standalone operation with dedicated teams. A U.S.-focused version, dailymail.com, starting in 2010 with a newsroom, followed by further growth in 2012. Mobile applications complement the web presence, offering breaking news alerts, podcasts, and redesigned interfaces for and Android users; the primary app has garnered over 126,000 reviews on with a 4.0 rating as of recent . A separate editions app provides digital replicas of the print Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. Social media integration amplifies reach, with active accounts across platforms like , , (now X), , and . As of early 2024, channels alone exceeded 10 million followers and accumulated over five billion views in the preceding year, leveraging short-form video for younger demographics. offerings include dedicated video sections featuring news clips and entertainment, alongside podcasts such as series and finance-focused "This is Money," available ad-free for subscribers via , , and . These elements position as a hybrid platform prioritizing visual and audio formats to drive engagement beyond traditional text.

Cultural and Societal Impact

The Daily Mail has appeared in various British and international media as a recurring symbol of tabloid journalism, often portrayed in contexts highlighting sensationalism, conservative viewpoints, or press influence on public discourse. In the 1993 film The Remains of the Day, adapted from Kazuo Ishiguro's novel and directed by James Ivory, the newspaper is referenced during scenes depicting 1930s political tensions, where characters discuss its coverage of fascist sympathies among British elites, underscoring its role in shaping elite opinion at the time. Similarly, in the 2000 comedy-drama Greenfingers, starring Clive Owen, the Daily Mail is name-checked as a source of gardening advice and media hype around an inmate's horticultural success story, reflecting its real-world penchant for uplifting human-interest tales amid prison reform debates. Television depictions frequently invoke the Daily Mail to satirize or critique tabloid ethics. In the anthology series Season 6, Episode 2 ("," released October 2023), a news montage features a headline from the Scottish Daily Mail amid a fictional true-crime scandal, portraying it as part of the sensationalist press amplifying local tragedies for national consumption. The paper has also been parodied in British comedy sketches and sitcoms, such as indirect nods in shows like (1994–1995 ), where tabloid-style invective mirrors Daily Mail-esque celebrity bashing, though not always by explicit name. In music and protest culture, the Daily Mail inspired American musician Amanda Palmer's 2014 single "Dear Daily Mail," a direct rebuke to the paper's article decrying her burlesque-themed as "depraved sexual exploitation," which Palmer framed as emblematic of journalism; the song charted in the UK and amplified debates on artistic freedom versus tabloid outrage. These representations collectively emphasize the Daily Mail's cultural archetype as a provocative, voice in British media, though critics of such portrayals argue they sometimes exaggerate its influence for dramatic effect without acknowledging its empirical reporting on undercovered stories.

Influence on Public Opinion and Policy

The Daily Mail's consistent promotion of conservative positions on immigration, national sovereignty, and cultural preservation has correlated with shifts in public attitudes, particularly among its core readership of middle-class and working-class Britons. A 2016 analysis of voting patterns in the EU referendum found that regular readers of the Daily Mail, alongside those of the Sun and Daily Express, were disproportionately likely to support Leave, with over 50% of tabloid readers overall favoring Brexit compared to Remain voters' preference for broadsheet audiences. This alignment reflects both reader self-selection—conservative-leaning individuals gravitating toward the paper—and potential reinforcement of preexisting views through repeated exposure to anti-EU and anti-immigration framing. In the realm of policy influence, the Daily Mail's agenda-setting role during the campaign amplified as a pivotal concern, contributing to the referendum's outcome and subsequent withdrawal from the in 2020. Research on media framing indicates that the paper's emphasis on uncontrolled migration and loss of helped elevate these issues in political discourse, prompting responses such as the 2010 refinements and tightened family reunion rules under Conservative governments. A study of tabloid coverage in the referendum's closing weeks highlighted how pro-Leave dailies, including the Daily Mail, dominated front-page narratives with and economic arguments, reaching millions and correlating with higher Leave support in areas with strong tabloid circulation. While direct causation remains debated—due to factors like economic discontent—correlational from readership surveys underscores the paper's capacity to mobilize opinion toward policy demands, such as post-Brexit trade barriers and asylum restrictions. Beyond Brexit, the Daily Mail has influenced domestic policy debates by spotlighting perceived failures in welfare, crime, and social cohesion, often pressuring administrations to adopt tougher stances. For instance, its campaigns against "benefit tourism" in the aligned with public polls showing majority support for curbs on migrant access to services, informing legislation like the 2014 Immigration Act's restrictions on public funds for newcomers. Critics from left-leaning outlets contend this fosters division, but empirical tracking of media effects via reveals the paper's outsized role in sustaining skepticism as a voter priority, evidenced by persistent gaps in opinion polls between Daily Mail readers and the general on issues like net migration targets. This dynamic exemplifies causal realism in media impact: while not unilaterally dictating votes, the paper's high circulation—averaging 800,000 daily print copies in the mid-—amplifies signals to policymakers attuned to its audience's concerns.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.