Huh ... Does the Daily Mail generally publish hoaxes?
I wouldn't buy a copy of the Mail, but I'm tired of reading fatuous name-calling of this sort from people who've never read the paper.
To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian.
How about faceless aliens spotted at Wimbledon ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-ali...
Or this one ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491757/First-picture...
or this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1160904/Resea...
I rest my case.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/10/india.internatio...
The third was covered in the Independent, a (former) broadsheet which I think most would consider as respectable as the Guardian: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-bra...
[edit] And the first story was covered in the Telegraph, another broadsheet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2238...
The news in the Mail might be a bit hyped but it's not "wildly inaccurate". I don't read it either, and wouldn't, but it's not exactly The Daily Sport.
Indeed, but the pictures were left out. Maybe someone had that rare quality called tact ?
Tabloids by their nature print many more photos.
http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/how_the_daily_mail_misreprese...
http://5cc.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-daily-mail-lies-about-im...
Of course, now you can say that's just two examples, and then I can go back and find another 10, and so on.
It then goes on to speculate that they're part of a viral marketing campaign or celebrities in disguise.
Lightweight and lowbrow, sure, but they aren't just making up tabloid lies.
My parents buy it, so I've read it fairly often at their house, but, no, I wouldn't buy it myself. So yes, I have read it on many occasions, while most of those who bash it do so without having ever read a copy.
To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian.
I didn't put them in the same column: as I said, the Mail is a tabloid. All I said is that both are heavily biased, which is true. Each writes with its own audience in mind: Guardian readers won't like what's written in the Mail, and vice-versa. Accusations beyond this, such as yours of "wildly inaccurate journalism", are more exaggerated and sensational than any Mail headline.