It's cheap and the article writing is bearable compared to the SUN. Though the Metro is decent as a free paper. I'd get the I but no where seems to have it in near me.
It's also easy reading, it's a step up from the childish language of the SUN but it's not a broadsheet(well..they where) like The times or the Guardian. If I just want to read it on the bus or something, Daily Mail is easier.
Also it has a quite a few amusing little stories at times.
It clearly doesn't deserve it, but God knows that showbiz sidebar on their website is impossible - and I mean literally impossible, no Jamie Redknapp-style hyperbole here - to stop reading everyday. Worse than crack.
The problem with the daily mail isn't that it's a tabloid and as tabloids go are slightly trashy and full of celeb gossip. That doesn't bother me at all, it's the out and out lies and manipulation it has in it's articles. Don't get me wrong I realise newspapers will have a leaning bias, but the daily mail takes it a whole step further and just manipulates the truth and stirs **** up. Everything from politics and immigration to health and the dreaded "PC gone mad" are talked about in the daily mails propoganda machine. And the way it states out and out lies as facts and tries to come across as genuine as if it were a broadsheet rather than a tabloid. Red headers I can deal with, with them they clearly show they are tabloids and don't try and be anything different. I didn't even mind the sun (until the phone hacking scandal), but i detest the daily mail. Just my personal opinion though.
Compared to what the BBC has reported before, I can't see why this even raised an eyebrow. I would say raising an eyebrow at a BBC article, and murmuring agreeement at a Daily Mail article, are more or less as bad as each other.
Daily Mail are reactionary screechy middle class women, BBC is ... an uncritical chump. If you report that Einstein has been resurrected, BBC will be the only people to report it.