Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The Daily Mail Web Site Overthrows NY Times As #1 News Site

There was a minor kerfuffle a few weeks ago when the Daily Mail website overtook the New York Times to become the most popular news site in the world. Liberals can whine all they like, but that's a formidable achievement, especially considering it's not really a conventional news site at all, more a big online bin full of pictures of reality stars, with the occasional Stephen Glover column lobbed in to lighten the mood.

The print edition of the paper is edited by Paul Dacre, who is regularly praised by media types for knowing what his customers want, and then selling it to them. This is an extraordinary skill that puts him on the same rarefied level as, say, anyone who works in a shoe shop. Or a bike shop. Or any kind of shop. Or in any absolutely any kind of business whatsoever. Whatever you think about Dacre's politics, you can't deny he's got a job to do, and he does it. Like a peg. Or a ladle. Or even a knee. Dacre is perhaps Britain's foremost knee.

Curiously, the online version of the Mail has become a hit by doing the reverse of what Dacre is commended for doing. It succeeds by remorselessly delivering industrial quantities of precisely the opposite of what a traditional Mail reader would presumably want to read: frothy stories about carefree young women enjoying themselves. Kim Kardashian or Kelly Brook "pour their curves" into a selection of tight dresses and waddle before the lens and absolutely nobody on the planet gives a toss apart from Mail Online, which is doomed to host the images, and Mail Online's readers, who flock in their thousands to leave messages claiming to be not in the slightest bit interested in the story they're reading and commenting on.

Now Mail Online has gone one step further by running a story that not only insults its own readers, but cruelly invites them to underline the insult by making fools of themselves. In what has to be a deliberate act of "trolling", last Friday it carried a story headlined "Rightwingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study". In terms of enraging your core readership, this is the equivalent of Nuts magazine suddenly claiming only gay men masturbate to Hollyoaks babes.

The Mail's report went on to detail the results of a study carried out by a group of Canadian academics, which appears to show some correlation between low childhood intelligence and rightwing politics. It also claimed that stupid people hold rightwing views in order to feel "safe". Other items they hold in order to feel safe include clubs, rocks and dustbin lids. But those are easy to let go of. Political beliefs get stuck to your hands. And the only way to remove them is to hold your brain under the hot tap and scrub vigorously for several decades.

As you might expect, many Mail Online readers didn't take kindly to a report that strived to paint them as simplistic, terrified dimwits. Many leapt from the tyres they were swinging in to furrow their brows and howl in anger. Others, tragically, began tapping rudimentary responses into the comments box. Which is where the tragi-fun really began.

"Stupidest study of them all," raged a reader called Beth. "So were the testers conservative for being so thick or were they left and using a non study to make themselves look better?" Hmmm. There's no easy answer to that. Because it doesn't make sense.

"I seem to remember 'academics' once upon a time stating that the world was flat and the Sun orbitted the Earth," scoffed Ted, who has presumably been keeping his personal brand of scepticism alive since the middle ages.

"Sounds like a BBC study, type of thing they would waste the Licence fee on, load of Cods wallop," claimed Terry from Leicester, thereby managing to ignore the findings while simultaneously attacking public service broadcasting for something it hadn't done. For his next trick, Terry will learn to whistle and shit at the same time.

Not all the respondents were stupid. Some were merely deluded. Someone calling themselves "Hillside" from Sydney claimed: "I have an IQ over 200, have six degrees and diplomas and am 'right-wing', as are others I know at this higher level of intelligence." His IQ score is particularly impressive considering the maximum possible score on Mensa's preferred IQ test is 161.

Whatever the numbers: intellectual dick-measuring isn't to everyone's tastes anyway. Simply by highlighting his own intelligence "Hillside" alienated several of his commentbox brethren.

"If there is one person I can not stand and that is a snob who thinks they are intelligent because if they were intelligent and educated they wouldn't be snobs," argued Liz from London. Once you've clambered over the broken grammar, deliberately placed at the start of the sentence like a rudimentary barricade of piled-up chairs, there's a tragic conundrum at work here. She claims intellectual snootiness is ugly, which it is, but unfortunately she says it in such a stupid way it's impossible for anyone smarter than a steak-and-ale pie not to look down on her. Thus, for Liz, the crushing cycle of snobbery continues.

On and on the comments went, turning a rather stark write-up of a daft-sounding study into a sublime piece of live online performance art. A chimps' tea party of the damned. The Mail has long been a master at trolling lefties; now it's mischievously turned on its own readers, and the results could only be funnier if the website came with free plastic lawn furniture for them to lob at the screen. You couldn't make it up.

by Anonymousreply 5608/09/2013

NYT was the #1 site in the world?

by Anonymousreply 102/05/2012

The Daily Mail website is hilarious. I was just there prior to coming across this thread, and I couldn't help but to laugh at two things that I noticed:

1. They ALWAYS have some embarrassingly pathetic mistake...whether it's getting the name of an actor's first name wrong, or misidentifying a well known person (i.e., showing a picture of Jessica Chastain, but identifying her as Emma Stone). Today it was a story on the world's richest models, where they identified a Canadian model as Ukrainian (even though she was born to Ukranian parents in Poland and has been living in Canada since she was 28).

2. 99% of their stories are about celebrities...especially Coleen Rooney, Katie Price, the Kardashians, and the Middleton sisters. When they do cover "real" news, it's always a story about people exploiting the social welfare system, young women who were killed, or a politician's misdeeds.

by Anonymousreply 202/05/2012

When the Jacqueline Kennedy tapes were released last summer, I remember reading a paragraph about LBJ saying he had been Governor of Texas before becoming Vice-President. The writers didn't even bother to correct it and state that he had been Senator.

by Anonymousreply 302/05/2012

The NY Times is driving readers away by limiting access to most of the content on both their website and on their app to paid subscribers. You can read all of the LA Times for free on both venues. USA Today is all free, too, as is CNN, MSNBC, and Huffington Post. You can make your own judgement about the value of the content, but most people don't want to pay for what they can get for free.

by Anonymousreply 402/05/2012

The Daily Mail has bashed gays for decades. They were applauding the death of every faggot who died from that "gay disease".

They are the biggest HATE SPEECH paper in existence.

On 16 July 1993 the Mail ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding";[52] this headline has been widely criticised in subsequent years, for example as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all" (of headlines from tabloid newspapers commenting on the Xq28 gene)

Don't forget the article on Stephen Gately's death. The most homophobic, "blame the sexual deviant for his alternative lifestyle behavior which led to his death", piece ever written!

by Anonymousreply 502/05/2012

The Daily Fail is the Fox Network of America. It's exactly the same thing. Still, Britain survives somehow.

by Anonymousreply 602/06/2012

Freeper fuckery

by Anonymousreply 702/06/2012

I wish people would quit linking to this site (although I'm going to in this reply just to show you an example) because both DM and it's readers are VERY homophobic. Just read the anti-gay comments in this article about Nate Berkus having a surrogate. It's pathetic.

by Anonymousreply 802/28/2013

I had just looked at that article and the comments astounded me. Across the board homophobic.

by Anonymousreply 902/28/2013

R9 Yep, it's sad, isn't it? It used to be an OK site back in the early/mid 2000's, but now it's just a freeper site. I refuse to click on it anymroe.

by Anonymousreply 1002/28/2013


by Anonymousreply 1102/28/2013

I rarely read the Daily Mail, I do however enjoy the Guardian.

The Guardian often has a touch of far left lunacy (We still don't have enough asylum seekers! Our children should be learning Swahili and organic farming!) but I find that much more tolerable than a lot of the trash that they put in the Daily Mail. The Guardian also has a US edition now too, if you're in America it comes up automatically.

by Anonymousreply 1202/28/2013

The Guardian 'far left'? Don't make me laugh R12. The Guardian is a wishy washy middle of the road paper with barely a left leaning correspondent or commentator to its name theses days. Beloved of middle class teachers who like to think they are more radical than they are The Grauniad wouldn't know real Left if it bit them on the arse.

There are no Left leaning mass circulation papers in the UK these days.

by Anonymousreply 1302/28/2013

Does the Groaniad not get why the DM posted that study? It was exactly to get the reaction they wanted. To show that the academics are full of shit & agendaizing ridiculous studies.

by Anonymousreply 1402/28/2013

You are going to find anti-gay sentiments on every news site. Anti-gay bigotry is pervasive.

by Anonymousreply 1502/28/2013

[quote]it's readers are VERY homophobic. Just read the anti-gay comments in this article about Nate Berkus having a surrogate. It's pathetic.

If that's the case, then it's time for all gays to leave DataLounge. In the history of this website, there has NEVER been a Nate Berkus thread that didn't have nasty comments about the man. Futher, there is never a day that homophobic comments have not been posted at DL. All kinds of Fundies, racists, and Rethuglicunts post offensive comments here on a regular basis. They're readers of DataLounge.

Judging by the comments in this thread to stay away from the Daily Mail, all those same people will be wanting to leave DataLounge, too.

by Anonymousreply 1603/01/2013

So wrong

by Anonymousreply 1703/01/2013

The Daily Mail isn't a "news" site. It is a compilation site on steroids, more so than HuffPo. You can find all sorts of stories about human wackiness, depravity, folly, frailty and tragedy from the UK and Britain. Their staff scrub local news websites in the U.S. for the weirdest, most eye-catching stories. Lots of true crime.

I first understood the DM's approach and reach last spring. A murder suicide that occurred a few blocks from where I live in Sacramento received more comprehensive coverage in the DM than any of our local stations or paper. Complete with personal photos from the players. In addition to finding everything possible from as many news outlets as possible, they also go to Facebook pages and steal family pictures of the tragic victims. My neighbors across the street lost their 4 year old daughter in a horrible freak accident. I learned more about this incident than I did from any single news outlet or my next door neighbors. Unbeknownst to them, I even got to see their family photos.

I also learned that we had a skunk infestation last spring. I'm sure our local papers covered it, buried somewhere in the middle of the Metro section.

by Anonymousreply 1803/01/2013

Could someone explain to me why there are literally 7-9 stories on the Kuntdashians at any given time?

The Daily Fail used to be a fun site back in the mid 2000's, but by the end of the last decade, it totally went to shit and now they post multiple lame ass stories about the same people over and over. And they seem obsessed with America. It's really a shitty site now.

by Anonymousreply 1905/24/2013

[quote]Could someone explain to me why there are literally 7-9 stories on the Kuntdashians at any given time?

Because they're as big as "Friends" in the UK.

The Daily Mail is a far-Right web site.

by Anonymousreply 2005/24/2013




by Anonymousreply 2105/24/2013

lowest common denominator

by Anonymousreply 2205/24/2013

I hate the Daily Fail. Not only because of it's lame PR driven stories, but because it's layout is so fucking chaotic and messy. It's so fucking cluttered you don't even know where to begin.

by Anonymousreply 2306/15/2013

[quote]You can read all of the LA Times for free on both venues.

I don't think this is true anymore, is it?

by Anonymousreply 2406/15/2013

The Daily Fail is not a legitimate news source. It's an aggregator and a tabloid.

The Daily Fail troll really needs to be banned.

by Anonymousreply 2506/15/2013

Their success has to be due largely to the tireless troll(s) who post DM links here and elsewhere. Americans don't seem to realize they're as bad as Fox "news".

by Anonymousreply 2606/15/2013

Whether they're an aggregator or not, they have a hell of a lot of stories, especially American ones, and a ton of interesting photos.

by Anonymousreply 2706/15/2013

BREAKING: McDonald's Big Mac Overthrows Beef Wellington As #1 Red Meat Meal

by Anonymousreply 2806/15/2013

I am truly ashamed to say I read it every day. online version

by Anonymousreply 2906/15/2013

R29 You should be ashamed because every time you read it, you're contributing to the success of that anti-gay tabloid.

by Anonymousreply 3006/15/2013

The homophobic aspect is much, much less these days.

You also often get quite balanced remarks from 'the readers' in relation to gay issues.

I think they realized the homophobia kept them in the past.

What I (admit to) liking about the site is the way it constantly renews itself. A lot of the news sites get stale and you find week's old stories sitting there.

[quote] especially American ones, and a ton of interesting photos

I agree about the photos.

by Anonymousreply 3106/15/2013

[quote]The Daily Fail is not a legitimate news source.

At any mention of the Daily Mail, there is no doubt that the Fail Troll, R25, will chime in with the cutesy nickname for the publication.

The Fail Troll is too dim to note:

1. DL is a gossip site

2. The Daily Mail publishes oodles of photos of the people discussed at DL

The Fail Troll needs to go back to the NY Times to read all the accurate news and let us enjoy gossip highlighted by links to the picture stories in the Daily Mail.

by Anonymousreply 3206/15/2013

[quote]The homophobic aspect is much, much less these days.

Bullshit. Just last year they had this editorial on the front page of their "news" paper:

by Anonymousreply 3306/15/2013

The Daily Mail treated us to the photos of Anderson Cooper's hunk, Ben Maisani, working his way toward a sexual afternoon frenzy with another guy in the Central Park Ramble.

by Anonymousreply 3406/15/2013

Whatever it is or it isn't, part of the strength is the fact it's free. Since so many newspapers have gone behind paywalls, I've stopped reading various newspapers. The prices are too high to justify it. I'd pay you a couple of bucks a month, but not $20.

I think the model is like iTunes... let me pick and choose.

by Anonymousreply 3506/15/2013

[quote] Since so many newspapers have gone behind paywalls, I've stopped reading various newspapers. The prices are too high to justify it. I'd pay you a couple of bucks a month, but not $20.

You get what you pay for. If you're not willing to pay for good journalism, you won't get good journalism. You'll get trashy journalism produced on the cheap or rewritten press releases. If you're not willing to spend more than $1 or $2 a month, you don't deserve good journalism.

by Anonymousreply 3606/15/2013

The New York Times died a decade ago. Nice to see reality verified. Nobody wants the NYTs 1 percent world view (propaganda) anymore.

by Anonymousreply 3706/15/2013

A few days ago, The Daily Mail published a big story on its website claiming that Neil Patrick Harris dropped the N-word during the Tony Awards. Now, the story has been removed.

by Anonymousreply 3806/15/2013

NYT jumped the shark when it became a propaganda machine supporting George Bush's war in Iraq.

by Anonymousreply 3906/15/2013

At the best of times, good journalism is about 1% of everything journalism spews out. When it's good it's very good. Most days, though...

by Anonymousreply 4006/15/2013

Nobody is claiming the Daily Mail is an example of accurate journalism.

It's a great place to see pictures of the people we discuss - better than any site in the USA. Why can't people comprehend that we don't depend on the Daily Mail for accurate news? They have this overwhelming need to jump in here to tell how the D.M. makes stupid mistakes. Like it really matters!!!! Duh!

by Anonymousreply 4106/15/2013

It's the pictures that gets me. Big, high quality colour pictures that are included within articles (no fussy slideshows). I'm surprised other sites don't do that more.

They do do a lot of professional trolling as well.

by Anonymousreply 4206/16/2013

[quote]The New York Times died a decade ago. Nice to see reality verified. Nobody wants the NYTs 1 percent world view (propaganda) anymore.

So true.

[quote]NYT jumped the shark when it became a propaganda machine supporting George Bush's war in Iraq.

Also true. When I think of the NYT, the reporter's name that immediately comes to mind is Judith Miller.

by Anonymousreply 4306/16/2013

I also like the Daily Mail for the pics, and they are never slideshow pics which I find annoying.

by Anonymousreply 4406/16/2013

The Daily Fail is fine for gossip and photos. I have no idea what their "news" coverage is like, I don't read it.

The New York Times is still a good newspaper. It's never been the left-wing bogeyman or the right-wing bogeyman that extremists on either side claim. It's always been a fairly conservative-to-centrist paper. It's still worth reading.

by Anonymousreply 4506/16/2013

Has anyone ever noticed how freaky the commenters are under the stories on the Daily Fail? One day the majority of them will be bashing someone/something, and then the next day there could be a similar story on the site and the majority of the comments will be glowing. The way they flip-flop so fast is creepy.

by Anonymousreply 4608/08/2013

[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 4708/08/2013

I'm an American, but I visit the Daily Mail site every day. The news there is more interesting. It does have a few fixations though, like with the Kardashians and every teacher that has had sex with a student (seriously, every case that occurs is reported).

by Anonymousreply 4808/08/2013

R47 "psychotically American & Jew hating human filth" - you need to calm down dear. I'm not sure how to break it to you, but the rest of the world doesn't base their media around the US. You'll get over it, possibly with counselling.

Why don't you have a sit diwn and a cup of tea, you'll feel better for it. And lay off the meth, you know it only angries up your blood.

by Anonymousreply 4908/08/2013

The Daily Mail is openly rightwing and homophobic.

by Anonymousreply 5008/08/2013

The NY Times actually reports the news. The daily mail steals info from all other news sources. They used to try and hide the fact that they stole/plagiarized almost all their content, but they got into trouble so now they at least have to list what source they stole their info from.

And even though they basically steal everything word for word, they won't even hire British employees to steal every other media source's content. They contract it out their plagiarizing to employees in other foreign countries putting together their website content. There are so many typing and grammatical errors. A lot of the information gets translated wrong or mixed up completely and the entire story is wrong. They'll finally correct it after about 20 or more people leave comments that the story is wrong. They are famous for calling celebrity couples "husband and wife" numerous times through out an article, when they couple are only dating.

by Anonymousreply 5108/08/2013

R8, the Daily Fail is garbage, but surrogacy is exploitative. It's bad enough when straights yuppies use women as brood mares; the practice shouldn't be expanded.

by Anonymousreply 5208/08/2013

[quote] It does have a few fixations though, like with the Kardashians and every teacher that has had sex with a student (seriously, every case that occurs is reported).

It's click bait. I'm sure they keep records of the types of stories that get the most traffic.

by Anonymousreply 5308/08/2013

R47 lambasts the Grauniad and the Beeb for being anti-semitic despite the plethora of Jews in their upper echelons and yet finds the Daily Heil 'amusing'.

That same wretched rag that supported the Nazis. Very amusing, indeed.

by Anonymousreply 5408/08/2013

Hey Asswipe OP, NYT has gone to a PAY news site, the other one is free. Don't you think that had something to do with it? AZZZWIPE!

by Anonymousreply 5508/08/2013

I always thought the Daily Mail was kind of a joke, now it's confirmed, it is.

by Anonymousreply 5608/09/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!