It must be doing something right.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.c...-awards?newsfeed=true

/// The Daily Mail won Newspaper of the Year and Website of the Year as well as collecting the prize for Campaign of the Year for its work on the pursuit of the killers of Stephen Lawrence. ///

[d9f1c7]

careful AOG, our Guardianistas will not be pleased!

[Gromit]

The Daily Mail website is by far the best newspaper website in the UK, if not the world. And their campaign to see Stephen Lawrence's killers caught and prosecuted is also to their credit.

[jno]

the Mail used to win this award quite often, but in recent years it seems to be shared around more evenly. Whether this means it has fallen off in quality, or just that it's felt other peapers ought to have a go occasionally, I could not say.

http://en.wikipedia.o...Newspaper_of_the_Year

As Gromit says, its website is extremely successful and is a worldwide leader in bringing you stories about celebrities wetting their pants

http://www.dailymail....ghed-little-hard.html

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

You are only repeating know facts, that's why they got the awards.

I am waiting for the "BUT".

What are your true views on the Newspaper?

[Gromit]

I have praised the Daily Mail website many times before...

//The Daily Mail website is the most viewed Newspaper website in the UK. Although I don't like the content, it does what it does extremely well. //
http://www.theanswerb...8.html#answer-5474458

// the internet versions of newspapers, such as the Daily Mail's excellent site, are subsidised by... //
http://www.theanswerb...8.html#answer-5407534

// Then I usually glance at the Mail. Though i do not agree with most of it, the Mail have a very good website. //
http://www.theanswerb...2.html#answer-6158782

[sunny-dave]

The Mail has an 'agenda' - with which I usually vehemently disagree - but I do agree with Gromit that the website is well laid out, functions very quickly and encourages you to browse around once you are there - which is always a sign of a well thought out website.

< nb - I'm not daft enough to think that The Graun and Private Eye don't equally have agendas - they just happen to be closer to my world view >

[Zeuhl]

The Mail is an excellent production - both the print version and online

Very easy to access its content - professionally put together

The ethical issue is one of content and it is twofold:

(and I know this because a good friend has worked for the paper as a freelance)

1. Agenda. Yes, most news organisations have an editorial agenda - but the Mail's is particularly negative, destructive, sharply defined and ultimately unhealthy

2. they are happy to run stories without verification even when they know they are suspect as long as they fit their agenda. When they are caught out printing what they knew were lies, they use every stone-walling trick they can to frustrate the complainant

Even when garbage is beautifully (award winningly) presented

- it is still garbage

[rov1100]

At least the daily paper is properly priced at 50p. However when it comes to the Mail on Sunday the price trebles to £1.50 even though its stuffed full of adverts and most of the stories are regurgitated the next day in Monday's Mail.

[FredPuli43]

The Daily Mail print edition is an excellent paper for its readership. Its readership is disproportionately old: 38.55 per cent is over 65, 22.4 per cent is 55 to 64. Its readership is 64 per cent ABC1. It reflects the views, beliefs and attitudes of older middle class people, couching its stories in carefully worded language that will appeal to them.

The online 'website' version is markedly different, specialising in photographs and trivia about a lot of celebrities of whom, I suspect, its core print readership have little knowledge.

The Lawrence campaign was a fine one, though it did verge on spoiling any trial by its 'we name the guilty men' approach.

[mazie]

The crossword is always a look