The Daily Mail
This article may contain excessive or irrelevant examples. Please help improve it by removing less pertinent examples and elaborating on existing ones. (September 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Daily Mail
Daily Mail front page on 11 July 2021 Type Daily newspaper Format Tabloid Owner Daily Mail and General Trust Founder(s) Alfred Harmsworth and Harold Harmsworth Publisher DMG Media Editor Ted Verity Founded 4 May 1896; 129 years ago (1896-05-04) Political alignment Right-wing [1] [2] [3] Language English Headquarters Northcliffe House 2 Derry Street London W8 5TT Circulation 617,447 (as of October 2025) [4] ISSN 0307-7578 OCLC number 16310567 Website dailymail.co.uk Part of a series on Conservatism in the United Kingdom
Ideologies
• Burkean
• Civic
• Green
• Liberal
• Muscular
• Neo
• Toryism
• High
• Red
• Ultra
Principles
• Loyalism
• Nobility
• English
• Scottish
• Welsh
• Royalism
History
• Cavalier
• Tories
• Brexit
Intellectuals
• Bagehot
• Biggar
• Blond
• Burke
• Carlyle
• Conquest
• Dawson
• Eliot
• Elton
• Ferguson
• Filmer
• Galton
• Gibbon
• Gray
• Haldane
• Hayek
• Hulme
• Hume
• Kipling
• Kedourie
• Laslett
• Lawrence
• Ludovici
• More
• Newman
• Parvini
• Ruskin
• Scott
• Scruton
• Southey
• Stephen
• Trueman
• Unwin
• Waugh
Politicians
• Badenoch
• Baldwin
• Balfour
• Burke
• Butler
• Cameron
• Canning
• Cazalet
• Clarke
• Disraeli
• Gove
• Hannan
• Hayes
• Hogg
• Howard
• Jenrick
• Joseph
• Leigh
• Major
• May
• Peel
• Pitt
• Powell
• Thatcher
• Whittle
• Willetts
Commentators
• Amis
• Benjamin
• Bowden
• Burton
• Clarkson
• Cohen
• Goodwin
• Hitchens
• Kisin
• Liddle
• Lunn
• Moore
• Morgan
• Murray
• Nelson
• Pearce
• Perry
• Roberts
• Smith
• Starkey
• Sullivan
• Turner
• Watson
• Welch
• West
• Young
Literature
• Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)
• "Tamworth Manifesto" (1834)
• On Heroes (1841)
• Coningsby (1844)
• Sybil (1845)
• Latter-Day Pamphlets (1850)
• Culture and Anarchy (1867–68)
• Orthodoxy (1908)
• The Servile State (1912)
• The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)
• The Abolition of Man (1943)
• The Left Was Never Right (1945)
• "Rivers of Blood" (1968)
• The Abolition of Britain (1999)
• Our Culture, What's Left of It (2005)
• The Rage Against God (2010)
• The Great Degeneration (2013)
• How to Be a Conservative (2014)
• Conservatism (2017)
• The Strange Death of Europe (2017)
Parties
Active
• Alliance EPP: European People's Party UK
• Conservative and Unionist Party
• Conservative Future (Defunct)
• Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)
Defunct
• Tories
Activists
• Bowden
• Hitchens
• Marshall
• Murray
• Payne
• Stroud
• Sullivan
Organisations
•
• Conservative Democratic Alliance (Defunct)
• CSC
• IEA
• Monday Club (Defunct)
• Right Book Club (Defunct)
• Social Affairs Unit (Defunct)
• Western Goals Institute (Defunct)
Media
• Anti-Jacobin Review (Defunct)
• Daily Mail
• GB News
• The Sun
• Talk
• UnHerd
Related
• Antidisestablishmentarianism
• " Constructive conservatism "
• List of British conservatives
• Philosophy of Thomas Carlyle
• Politics of the United Kingdom
•
• v • t • e
The Daily Mail is a British daily middle-market tabloid conservative newspaper, first making its appearance on the newsstands of London in 1896. This publication, a stalwart of the British press, has expanded its reach considerably over the decades, establishing a Scottish edition in 1947 and an Irish edition in 2006. Its digital counterpart, MailOnline, operates as a distinct entity with its own editorial team, though much of its content originates from the printed paper, a testament to the symbiotic, if sometimes strained, relationship between print and digital journalism [5] [6] [7].
The paper's ownership rests with the Daily Mail and General Trust, a corporate entity overseen by Jonathan Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere. As a direct great-grandson of one of the original co-founders, his influence is considerable, serving as both chairman and controlling shareholder. Despite this familial legacy, the daily editorial decisions are typically delegated to a dedicated team under the leadership of the appointed editor. Since 17 November 2021, Ted Verity has held this pivotal role, succeeding Geordie Greig.
In 2014, a demographic survey revealed that the average age of a Daily Mail reader hovered around 58, marking it as the British major daily with the lowest proportion of readers between 15 and 44 years old [9]. Intriguingly, and somewhat uniquely within the landscape of British daily newspapers, women constitute a slight majority of its readership, typically ranging from 52–55% [10]. As of February 2020, the paper maintained an average daily circulation of approximately 1.13 million copies [11]. The period between April 2019 and March 2020 saw its average daily readership reach around 2.18 million individuals, with roughly 1.41 million falling into the ABC1 demographic (middle and upper-middle class) and 0.77 million in the C2DE demographic (working class and non-working population) [12]. Its online platform, MailOnline, boasted an impressive reach, attracting over 218 million unique visitors each month in 2020, underscoring its significant digital footprint [13].
Despite consistent criticism regarding its journalistic integrity, the Daily Mail has accumulated a notable collection of accolades. It has been honored with The Press Awards' National Newspaper of the Year title nine times since 1994, with the most recent win recorded in 2019 [14]. The Society of Editors also recognized it as the 'Daily Newspaper of the Year' for 2020 [15]. However, these commendations exist in stark contrast to persistent criticisms. The paper has faced scrutiny for its perceived unreliability, a propensity for sensationalist reporting, and a track record of publishing what many consider inaccurate scare stories, particularly concerning scientific and medical research [16] [17] [18] [19]. Allegations of plagiarism and copyright infringement have also plagued its reputation [20] [21] [22] [23]. This contentious history culminated in a significant decision in February 2017 when the English Wikipedia community formally banned the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source for factual claims, a move that highlighted serious concerns about its editorial practices [24] [25] [26].
Overview
Initially, the Daily Mail presented itself in the more traditional broadsheet format, a common sight for serious newspapers of its era. However, in a strategic shift coinciding with its 75th anniversary on 3 May 1971, the paper transitioned to a more manageable compact format [27]. This move wasn't just a physical change; it also marked the absorption of its sister publication, the Daily Sketch, which had previously operated as a tabloid under the same corporate umbrella. This consolidation allowed the Daily Mail to streamline operations and potentially capture a broader readership. The publishing entity behind the Mail, the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), maintains a public presence on the London Stock Exchange, reflecting its status as a significant media conglomerate.
According to the meticulous records of the Audit Bureau of Circulations (UK), the Daily Mail registered gross daily sales of 1,134,184 copies in February 2020 [11]. The paper's political leanings are clearly reflected in its readership; a December 2004 survey indicated that a substantial 53% of Daily Mail readers cast their votes for the Conservative Party (UK), a stark contrast to the 21% who supported Labour and 17% for the Liberal Democrats (UK) [28]. This demographic insight underscores its entrenched position within the British political landscape. Viscount Rothermere, the current chairman and principal shareholder, maintains that the paramount concern is sustaining the paper's circulation. He famously articulated before a House of Lords select committee the principle that "we need to allow editors the freedom to edit," implying that the newspaper's editor possesses the autonomy to shape editorial policy, including its political allegiances [29]. This statement, of course, leaves room for interpretation regarding the true extent of that "freedom." On 17 November 2021, Ted Verity assumed a newly expanded, seven-day editorial role, taking charge of all Mail newspapers, a portfolio that includes the flagship Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, and You magazine [30].
History
Early history
Advertisement by the Daily Mail for insurance against Zeppelin attacks during the First World War
The Daily Mail was conceived and brought to life by the visionary, if somewhat controversial, brothers Alfred Harmsworth (who would later become Viscount Northcliffe) and Harold Harmsworth (eventually Viscount Rothermere). Its inaugural issue hit the streets on 4 May 1896, and it was an immediate, undeniable sensation [31]:28. Priced at a mere halfpenny, it dramatically undercut its London daily competitors, which typically retailed for a full penny. This aggressive pricing strategy, coupled with a more populist tone and a refreshingly concise approach to news coverage, resonated deeply with the public. The initial circulation target was an ambitious 100,000 copies, yet the first day's print run soared to an astonishing 397,215, necessitating the rapid acquisition of additional printing facilities to keep pace with demand. By 1899, its circulation had climbed to 500,000, and by 1902, in the wake of the Boer Wars, it surpassed a million, solidifying its status as the largest newspaper in the world [33] [34]. This meteoric rise prompted Lord Salisbury, the 19th-century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to famously dismiss the Daily Mail as "a newspaper produced by office boys for office boys," a remark that, while intended as a slight, inadvertently captured its populist appeal [32]:590–591.
With Harold meticulously managing the intricate business operations and Alfred steering the editorial ship, the Mail swiftly adopted an unyielding imperialist political stance. This was particularly evident in its fervently patriotic coverage of the Second Boer War, a period during which critics argued it sacrificed objective reporting for a jingoistic narrative [35]. Beyond its political posturing, the Mail also ingeniously sought to captivate its readers through compelling human interest stories, engaging serials, diverse features, and enticing competitions [36]:5. It was a pioneering force in recognizing and actively cultivating the burgeoning market of female readers, dedicating an entire section to women's interests [37] [36]:16. Furthermore, it notably hired one of the earliest female war correspondents, Sarah Wilson, who delivered dispatches from the front lines of the Second Boer War [38] [36]:27.
In a move that revolutionized newspaper distribution, the Daily Mail began simultaneously printing in both Manchester and London in 1900, becoming the first national newspaper to achieve this feat. Prior to this, in 1899, the Daily Mail had already established a system of special trains to transport London-printed papers northward, highlighting its early commitment to national reach. This innovative production method was subsequently adopted by the Daily Sketch in 1909, the Daily Express in 1927, and eventually became standard practice for virtually all other national newspapers. Production of the Scottish Daily Mail was later relocated from Edinburgh to the Deansgate plant in Manchester in 1968. For a period, The People also utilized the Mail presses in Deansgate. However, in 1987, printing operations at Deansgate ceased, with northern editions thereafter being produced at other facilities owned by Associated Newspapers.
During the early 20th century, the paper vigorously championed against the perceived "Yellow Peril," a xenophobic narrative warning of alleged dangers posed by Chinese immigration to the United Kingdom [39]. This particular theme, however, eventually faded as the escalating Anglo-German naval race presented a more immediate and "plausible" threat to the British Empire [39]. In alignment with other Conservative publications, the Daily Mail skillfully leveraged the naval race to criticize the Liberal governments in power from 1906 onwards, accusing them of being overly cautious and indecisive in their response to the Tirpitz plan, Germany's ambitious naval expansion program.
The Mail was also known for its ambitious and often extravagant stunts. In 1906, it famously offered a substantial £10,000 prize for the first successful flight from London to Manchester, a challenge that captured the public's imagination. This was followed by a £1,000 prize for the first aerial crossing of the English Channel [31]:29. Punch magazine, ever the satirist, found the idea so ludicrous that it mockingly offered £10,000 for the first flight to Mars. Yet, by 1910, both of the Mail's challenging aviation prizes had been claimed. The paper continued to sponsor aviation prizes intermittently until 1930 [40]. Not all its journalistic endeavors were met with praise, however. Virginia Woolf, a keen observer of media, criticized the Daily Mail as an unreliable newspaper. She specifically cited a July 1900 report during the Boxer Rebellion that falsely claimed "every one of the Europeans was put to the sword in a most atrocious manner," asserting that the entire European community in Beijing had been massacred [41]. A month later, in August 1900, the Daily Mail published an account of the relief of the Western Legations in Beijing, where Westerners and thousands of Chinese Christians had indeed been under siege by the Boxers [41].
Leading up to the First World War, the paper faced accusations of warmongering, primarily for its alarmist reports suggesting that Germany harbored intentions to dismantle the British Empire [31]:29. When war inevitably broke out, Northcliffe's vocal advocacy for conscription was initially met with considerable controversy. However, his stance was ultimately vindicated when conscription was formally introduced in 1916 [42]. A particularly contentious moment occurred on 21 May 1915, when Northcliffe publicly criticized Lord Kitchener, the revered Secretary of State for War, over issues concerning weapons and munitions. Kitchener, a national hero in the eyes of many, saw the paper's circulation plummet from 1,386,000 to a mere 238,000. This public outcry was so severe that fifteen hundred members of the London Stock Exchange demonstratively burned unsold copies of the paper and called for a widespread boycott of the Harmsworth Press. Prime Minister H. H. Asquith went so far as to accuse the paper of disloyalty to the nation.
When Kitchener tragically died, the Mail controversially framed it as a "great stroke of luck" for the British Empire [31]:32. The paper maintained its critical stance on Asquith's prosecution of the war, a consistent pressure that some argue contributed to his resignation on 5 December 1916 [43]. His successor, David Lloyd George, extended an invitation for Northcliffe to join his cabinet, presumably hoping to neutralize his potent criticism of the government. Northcliffe, however, declined the offer [44]. Reflecting on Northcliffe's profound impact, Piers Brendon offered a scathing assessment: "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 debauch, the public mind; he polluted, if he did not poison, the wells of knowledge." [45] A stark, yet perhaps accurate, summary of the early Daily Mail's legacy.
Inter-war period
This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (July 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
1919–1930
Bundles of newspapers loaded into the back of a Daily Mail van in the early hours for delivery to newsagents in 1944
Northcliffe, ever keen on light-hearted stunts to maintain public engagement, initiated the rather peculiar 'Hat campaign' during the winter of 1920. This was a competition offering a £100 prize for an innovative hat design – a subject that, surprisingly, held a particular fascination for Northcliffe himself. The contest attracted a staggering 40,000 entries, ultimately crowning a hybrid design, a cross between a top hat and a bowler, which was rather grandiosely christened the Daily Mail Sandringham Hat. The paper subsequently embarked on a fervent promotional campaign for its widespread adoption, though with limited success [46].
In 1919, the intrepid aviators Alcock and Brown made history by completing the first non-stop flight across the Atlantic, an achievement that earned them a princely sum of £10,000 from the Daily Mail. The paper continued its tradition of celebrating aviation milestones. In 1930, it once again commanded public attention with another aviation spectacle, awarding a further £10,000 prize to Amy Johnson for her groundbreaking solo flight from England to Australia [47].
The Daily Mail was also the originator of the now-iconic Ideal Home Exhibition, which first opened its doors in 1908. Initially, Northcliffe had dismissed this venture as little more than a publicity stunt designed to sell advertising space, even refusing to attend himself. However, under pressure from his wife, his perspective softened, and he became a more ardent supporter. By 1922, the editorial wing of the paper was fully invested in promoting the virtues of modern appliances and new technologies, pitching them as tools to liberate its female readership from the perceived drudgery of household chores [48]. The Mail continued to organize this popular event until it was eventually sold to Media 10 in 2009 [49]. As Lord Northcliffe's health declined with age, his firm grip on the paper began to loosen, leading to periods of disengagement. His physical and mental well-being deteriorated rapidly in 1921, and he passed away in August 1922 at the relatively young age of 57. Following his death, his brother, Lord Rothermere, assumed complete control of the publication [31]:33.
The Chanak Crisis of 1922 brought Britain perilously close to war with Turkey. Prime Minister David Lloyd George, with the unwavering backing of War Secretary Winston Churchill, was determined to engage in conflict over Turkey's demand for British withdrawal from their occupation zone. Churchill, in particular, dispatched urgent telegrams to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, requesting troops for the anticipated war. George Ward Price, the "extra-special correspondent" for The Daily Mail, found himself in a complex position, expressing sympathy not only for the beleaguered British garrison at Chanak but also for the Turkish perspective [50]. Ward Price's articles asserted that Mustafa Kemal harbored no broader ambitions to restore the lost frontiers of the Ottoman Empire, seeking only the Allied departure from Asia Minor [50]. In a bold declaration, The Daily Mail ran a massive banner headline on 21 September 1922, proclaiming "Get Out Of Chanak!" [50] An accompanying editorial, or leader, condemned Churchill's hawkish views as "bordering on insanity" [50]. This same leader pointedly highlighted Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King's rejection of Churchill's troop request, warning that Churchill's attempts to enlist the Dominions for the impending conflict jeopardized the very unity of the British Empire [50].
Rothermere, a figure with a fundamentally elitist view of politics, firmly believed that Britain's natural leaders were men of the upper class, like himself. He expressed strong disapproval of the decision to grant women the right to vote and the dismantling of franchise requirements that had historically disenfranchised lower-class men [51]. Convinced that British women and lower-class men lacked the capacity to truly comprehend complex political issues, Rothermere began to lose faith in the democratic process [51]. In October 1922, The Daily Mail openly approved of the Fascist "March on Rome," arguing that democracy had failed in Italy, thereby necessitating Benito Mussolini's Fascist dictatorship to restore social order [51]. By 1923, Rothermere published a leader in The Daily Mail titled "What Europe Owes Mussolini," where he lauded his "profound admiration" for Mussolini, praising him 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]. The paper's pro-Italian stance extended to the 1923 Italian occupation of Corfu, where it condemned the British government for even its rhetorical opposition to the Italian assault on Greece [53].
On 25 October 1924, in a move that sent shockwaves through the British political establishment, the Daily Mail published the infamous Zinoviev letter. This letter, purportedly from Grigory Zinoviev of the Comintern, appeared to instruct British Communists to prepare for violent revolution. Though later proven to be a forgery, its timing – just four days before the 1924 general election – led many on the left to blame it for the defeat of Ramsay MacDonald's Labour Party (UK) [54].
Unlike most of its contemporaries, the Mail quickly grasped the potential of the nascent medium of radio. In 1928, the newspaper ventured into the realm of offshore radio, establishing an early station aboard a yacht. This initiative served both as a self-promotional tool and a daring attempt to challenge the BBC's broadcasting monopoly. However, the project ultimately faltered as the onboard equipment proved incapable of delivering a consistently strong signal. Consequently, the transmitter was replaced with a set of speakers, and the yacht spent its summer entertaining beach-goers with gramophone records, punctuated by advertisements for the newspaper and its insurance fund. The Mail also frequently sponsored broadcasts on continental commercial radio stations targeted towards Britain throughout the 1920s and 1930s, and periodically voiced its support for the legalisation of private radio, a development that would not actually materialize until 1973.
From 1923, Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail forged a significant, albeit often tumultuous, alliance with another powerful press baron, Lord Beaverbrook. Their primary antagonist was the Conservative Party leader, Stanley Baldwin. Rothermere, in a leader, grudgingly conceded that Fascist methods were "not suited to a country like our own," but swiftly qualified this with the ominous statement, "if our northern cities became Bolshevik we would need them" [55]. An article in 1927, celebrating five years of Fascism in Italy, drew parallels between modern Britain and Italy during the final years of its Liberal era. It argued that Italy had suffered under a succession 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]. The article further criticized Baldwin, comparing him to the ineffectual Italian prime ministers of the Liberal era, condemning his government for its "feebleness which it tries to placate opposition by being more Socialist than the Socialists" regarding the General Strike of 1926 [55]. By 1928, The Daily Mail was effusively praising Mussolini in a leader, declaring him "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, a prominent writer for the Mail, was openly advocating for Baldwin's removal and Beaverbrook's ascension to leadership. In early 1930, the two Lords jointly launched the United Empire Party, a political venture that received the enthusiastic backing of the Daily Mail [31]:35. Much like Lord Beaverbrook, Rothermere was incensed by Baldwin's more moderate, centre-right brand of Conservatism and his pragmatic decision to broaden the appeal of the Conservative Party in response to almost universal suffrage [57]. Far from viewing the enfranchisement of women as the catastrophe Rothermere believed it to be, Baldwin actively sought to court female voters, a politically astute tactic that, while successful, led Rothermere to accuse Baldwin of "feminizing" the Conservative Party [57].
The rise of this new party dominated the newspaper's coverage, and even after Beaverbrook soon withdrew his support, Rothermere stubbornly continued his campaign. Vice Admiral Ernest Augustus Taylor contested the first by-election for the United Empire Party in October, narrowly defeating the official Conservative candidate by 941 votes. Baldwin's position appeared increasingly precarious. However, in 1931, Duff Cooper secured a crucial victory in the by-election at St George's, Westminster, triumphing over the United Empire Party candidate, Sir Ernest Petter, who was heavily supported by Rothermere. This defeat effectively shattered the political influence of the powerful press barons [58].
In a notable cultural acquisition in 1927, the acclaimed painting of the year, Morning by Dod Procter, was purchased by the Daily Mail and subsequently presented to the Tate Gallery [59].
Rothermere, heavily influenced by his Hungarian mistress, Countess Stephanie von Hohenlohe, became a fervent champion of Hungary's cause from 1927. On 21 June 1927, he published a leader titled "Hungary's Place in the Sun" [60]. In this piece, he approvingly highlighted Hungary's political and economic dominance by its "chivalrous and warlike aristocracy," noting their historical role in battling the Ottoman Empire. He concluded that Europe owed a profound debt to this Hungarian aristocracy, which had served as "Europe's bastion against which the forces of Mahomet [the Prophet Mohammed] vainly hurled themselves against" [61]. Rothermere passionately argued for the injustice of the "noble" Hungarians being subjected to the rule of "cruder and more barbaric races," a thinly veiled reference to the peoples of Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia. His leader advocated for Hungary to reclaim all territories lost under the Treaty of Trianon, a stance that immediately provoked alarm in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Romania, where it was erroneously believed to reflect official British government policy [60]. Additionally, he championed the cause of the Sudeten Germans, asserting that the Sudetenland ought to be ceded to Germany [61]. The Czechoslovak Foreign Minister Edvard Beneš was so deeply concerned by Rothermere's pronouncements that he traveled to London to meet King George V. The King, known for his strong dislike of Rothermere, reportedly used language so crude and "unkingy" in his condemnation of the press baron that Beneš felt unable to repeat the remarks to Prague [61]. Rothermere's relentless "Justice for Hungary" campaign, which he continued until February 1939, remained a constant source of disquiet for the Foreign Office, which frequently lamented that British relations with Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Romania were perpetually strained due to these nations' persistent belief that Rothermere was somehow speaking on behalf of the British government [62].
A recurring and significant theme in The Daily Mail's editorial stance was its vehement opposition to the Indian independence movement. Much of Rothermere's animosity towards Baldwin stemmed from his conviction that the Prime Minister was not sufficiently against Indian independence. In 1930, Rothermere penned a series of leaders under the stark title "If We Lose India!", asserting that granting India independence would inevitably signify the demise of Britain as a great power [63]. Furthermore, Rothermere ominously predicted that Indian independence would trigger the end of global white supremacy, as it would inevitably inspire the peoples of other British colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas to demand their own independence. The decision by Labour Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald to initiate the Round Table Conferences (India) in 1930 was met by The Daily Mail as nothing less than the harbinger of Britain's decline as a world power [64]. As part of its crusade against Indian independence, The Daily Mail published a series of articles that consistently depicted the peoples of India as ignorant, barbaric, unclean, and fanatical. These articles argued that the continued existence of the Raj was essential to "save India from the Indians," whom The Daily Mail contended were utterly incapable of managing their own independence [64].
1930–1939
Lord Rothermere cultivated personal friendships with both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, relationships that profoundly shaped the Mail's editorial direction towards these figures throughout the early 1930s [65] [66]. Rothermere adopted an uncompromisingly anti-Communist stance, so extreme that he reportedly owned an estate in Hungary, intended as a refuge should Britain ever fall under Soviet conquest [67]. Following the Nazis' significant electoral breakthrough in the Reichstag elections on 14 September 1930, where they secured 107 seats, Rothermere promptly traveled to Munich to personally interview Hitler [68]. In an article published in the Daily Mail on 24 September 1930, Rothermere wrote with an unsettling blend of admiration and advice: "These young Germans have discovered, as I am glad to note that the young men and women of England are discovering, that it 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]. From December 1931, Rothermere initiated talks with Oswald Mosley, exploring terms under which the Daily Mail would lend its formidable support to Mosley's New Party. These negotiations were protracted, largely because Mosley, aware of Rothermere's megalomaniacal tendencies, understood that the press baron sought to leverage the New Party for his own purposes, imposing stringent terms and conditions in exchange for the Daily Mail's endorsement [69]. Mosley, equally egoistical, desired Rothermere's backing but only on his own uncompromising terms [69].
Rothermere's 1933 leader, "Youth Triumphant," was a glowing endorsement of the burgeoning Nazi regime's early accomplishments, a piece so favorable that it was subsequently appropriated and utilized as propaganda by the Nazis themselves [70]. In it, Rothermere optimistically, or perhaps chillingly, predicted that "The minor misdeeds of individual Nazis would be submerged by the immense benefits the new regime is already bestowing upon Germany" [70]. Journalist John Simpson, in his insightful book on journalism, suggested that Rothermere's euphemistic "minor misdeeds" were a deliberate downplaying of the escalating violence against Jews and Communists, rather than merely referencing the detention of political prisoners [71]. Beyond his enthusiastic support for Nazi Germany as a "bulwark against Bolshevism," Rothermere also utilized The Daily Mail as a powerful platform to champion his personal crusade: advocating for a stronger Royal Air Force (RAF) [72]. Convinced that aerial warfare represented the future of military technology, The Daily Mail throughout the 1930s was described as "obsessional" in its relentless lobbying for increased spending on the RAF [73].
Rothermere and the Mail extended their editorial sympathies to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists (BUF) [74]. Rothermere famously penned an article titled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts," published in the Daily Mail on 15 January 1934. In this piece, he lauded Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" [75] and explicitly provided instructions for recruitment, stating: "Young men may join the British Union of Fascists by writing to the Headquarters, King's Road, Chelsea, London, S.W." [76] The Spectator, a publication with a decidedly different editorial bent, condemned Rothermere's article, observing 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 even ran a competition, "Why I Like The Blackshirts," awarding one pound weekly for the most compelling letter from its readers explaining their affinity for the BUF [69]. This overt support, however, ceased following a violent BUF rally at Kensington Olympia in June 1934 [78]. Mosley and many others speculated that Rothermere's withdrawal of support was a direct response to pressure from Jewish businessmen who, it was believed, had threatened to pull their advertising from the paper if it continued to back an openly anti-Semitic party [79]. Despite this, the paper's editorial line continued to oppose the arrival of Jewish refugees fleeing Germany, lamenting their presence as "a problem to which the Daily Mail has repeatedly pointed" [80].
In December 1934, Rothermere embarked on a visit to Berlin, hosted by Joachim von Ribbentrop. During this visit, he received public commendation in a speech by Josef Goebbels for the Daily Mail's distinctly pro-German coverage of the Saarland referendum. This plebiscite offered the people of the Saarland the choice of remaining under the administration of the League of Nations, joining France, or rejoining Germany [81]. In March 1935, evidently swayed by Ribbentrop's arguments for the return of Germany's former African colonies, Rothermere published a leader titled "Germany Must Have Elbow Room" [82]. In this piece, Rothermere argued that the Treaty of Versailles had been unduly harsh on the Reich. He contended that the German economy was being crippled by the loss of its colonial empire in Africa, asserting that without these territories to exploit, Germany's recovery from the Great Depression remained fragile and superficial [82].
J. F. C. Fuller, a military theorist and an Italophile member of both the British Union of Fascists and the British Union of Friends of Italy, served as the Daily Mail's military correspondent within the Italian camp during the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in late 1935. His dispatches frequently drew parallels between Mussolini's troops and the historical figures of the crusaders and the Hussites, reflecting his clear ideological sympathies [83] [84].
During the tumultuous Spanish Civil War, The Daily Mail published a photo-essay on 27 July 1936, authored by Ferdinand Tuohy, entitled "The Red Carmens, the women who burn churches" [85]. Tuohy's piece featured a series of photographs depicting Spanish women, members of the Worker's Militia, marching to the front lines armed with rifles and ammunition pouches slung over their shoulders [85]. In an essay that has since been widely criticized as profoundly misogynistic, Tuohy lamented: "The Spanish woman 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 expressed his horror at these young Spanish women's rejection of the traditional patriarchal system, writing with evident disgust that the "direct action girls" of the Worker's Militia showed no desire to emulate their mothers, who were submissive and obedient to men [86]. He labeled these young women "Red Carmens," deliberately associating them with both the destructive heroine of the opera Carmen and with Communism, arguing that the existence of these "Red Carmens" served as irrefutable proof of the amorality of the Spanish Republic, which audaciously preached gender equality [86]. For Tuohy, women engaging in warfare represented a fundamental rejection of their femininity, leading him to characterize them as monstrous. He further accused the "Red Carmens" of "sexual depravity," expressing utter horror at the mere possibility of these women engaging in premarital sex, which, in his view, signaled the very collapse of "civilisation" itself [87]. The British historian Caroline Brothers observed that Tuohy's article revealed a great deal about the gender politics prevalent at The Daily Mail, which chose to publish his photo-essay, and presumably reflected the expectations of The Daily Mail's readership, who were anticipated to approve of such an article [88].
In a 1937 article, George Ward Price, the special correspondent for The Daily Mail, wrote approvingly: "The sense of national unity – the Volksgemeinschaft – to which the Führer constantly appeals in his speeches is not a rhetorical invention, but a reality" [89]. Ward Price was undoubtedly one of the most controversial British journalists of the 1930s, earning the rare distinction of being one of the few British reporters granted interviews with both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. This access was predicated on the understanding by both fascist leaders that Ward Price could be relied upon to adopt a favorable tone and ask only "soft" questions [89]. Wickham Steed famously, and perhaps accurately, dubbed Ward Price "the lackey of Mussolini, Hitler and Rothermere" [89]. The British historian Daniel Stone characterized Ward Price's reporting from Berlin and Rome as "a mixture of snobbery, name dropping and obsequious pro-fascism of a most genteel 'English' type" [89]. During the 1938 crisis over the Sudetenland, The Daily Mail cultivated a distinctly hostile portrayal of President Edvard Beneš. Rothermere, in a July 1938 leader, disapprovingly noted that Beneš had signed an alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935, leading him to accuse Beneš of transforming "Czechoslovakia into a corridor for Russia against Germany" [90]. Rothermere concluded his leader with a stark warning: "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 escalating Danzig crisis, The Daily Mail inadvertently became a tool for German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to persuade Hitler that Britain would not intervene militarily to defend Poland. Ribbentrop instructed the German Embassy in London, led by Herbert von Dirksen, to provide Hitler with translations of articles from pro-appeasement newspapers like The Daily Mail and the Daily Express. This selective reporting created a skewed perception, making it appear as though British public opinion was far more strongly against going to war for Poland than was actually the case [91] [92]. The British historian Victor Rothwell observed that the newspapers Ribbentrop used for his press summaries, such as the Daily Express and The Daily Mail, were largely out of touch not only with prevailing British public opinion but also with the actual British government policy regarding the Danzig crisis [92]. These press summaries were particularly influential because Ribbentrop had successfully convinced Hitler that the British government secretly controlled the British press, operating under the same assumption as in Germany, where nothing appeared in the media without state approval [93].
Post-war history
Sub-editor's room at the offices of the Daily Mail newspaper in 1944
On 5 May 1946, The Daily Mail marked its Golden Jubilee, a significant milestone in its history. The celebratory banquet featured Winston Churchill as the esteemed chief guest, who delivered a speech toasting the newspaper's enduring legacy [94]. The severe newsprint rationing imposed during the Second World War had necessitated a drastic reduction in the Daily Mail's size, shrinking it to a mere four pages. However, as the 1950s progressed, the paper gradually expanded its page count, reflecting the easing of wartime restrictions and a return to normalcy [94]. In 1947, as the British Raj concluded, the Daily Mail captured the historical moment with a banner headline that succinctly, and perhaps chillingly, read: "India: 11 words mark the end of an empire" [95]. During the volatile Suez crisis of 1956, the Daily Mail consistently adopted a hawkish stance against President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. The paper vehemently argued that Britain was entirely justified in invading Egypt to regain control of the Suez Canal and topple Nasser's regime [96].
The Daily Mail underwent a profound transformation under the editorship of David English during the 1970s and 1980s. English, who had previously served as editor of the Daily Sketch from 1969 until its closure in 1971, took the helm of the Mail. The Sketch, having been part of the same media group since 1953, was subsequently absorbed by its sister title, the Daily Mail, with English transitioning to the editorship—a position he would hold for over two decades [97]. Under his astute leadership, the Mail evolved from a struggling publication, selling only half the copies of its mid-market rival, the Daily Express, into a formidable journalistic force. Its circulation steadily climbed, eventually surpassing that of the Express by the mid-1980s, a testament to English's editorial prowess [98]. His significant contributions to journalism were formally recognized with a knighthood in 1982 [99].
The paper experienced a period of notable journalistic success throughout the 1980s, attracting and cultivating a roster of prominent Fleet Street writers. These included the famously sharp-tongued gossip columnist Nigel Dempster, the often controversial Lynda Lee-Potter, and the esteemed sportswriter Ian Wooldridge. Wooldridge, notably, distinguished himself from some of his colleagues—the paper generally did not support sporting boycotts of white-minority-ruled South Africa—by strongly opposing apartheid [98]. In 1982, a Sunday counterpart, The Mail on Sunday, was launched. (It's worth noting that the Scottish Sunday Mail, an entirely separate entity now owned by the Mirror Group, had been founded much earlier in 1919 by the first Lord Rothermere, but was later sold off) [100].
Sir David English, knighted in 1982 for his services to journalism, transitioned to the role of editor-in-chief and chairman of Associated Newspapers in 1992. This move came after Rupert Murdoch had made an attempt to poach Evening Standard editor Paul Dacre for the editorship of The Times. To counter Murdoch's aggressive offer and retain talent within the Associated Newspapers group (which then included the Evening Standard), Paul Dacre was appointed to succeed English at the Daily Mail [101]. Dacre eventually retired from his role as editor of the Daily Mail but continues to serve as editor-in-chief of the broader group, maintaining a significant influence.
In late 2013, the paper relocated its primary London printing operations from the historic Docklands area to a state-of-the-art £50 million facility in Thurrock, Essex [102]. The Daily Mail also maintains distinct Scottish editions for both its daily and Sunday publications, featuring localized articles and a different roster of columnists to cater to its regional readership.
In August 2016, the Daily Mail embarked on a controversial partnership with The People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party [103] [104]. This collaboration involved the publication of articles produced by The People's Daily on the MailOnline platform. While the agreement appeared to offer the Daily Mail a strategic advantage in sourcing news stories directly from China, it simultaneously raised significant questions regarding potential censorship and editorial independence, particularly concerning politically sensitive topics [105].
In November 2016, Lego, a long-standing partner, discontinued its promotional campaigns with the paper. This decision followed a concerted campaign by the activist group 'Stop Funding Hate,' which voiced strong objections to the Mail's coverage of migrant issues and its editorial stance during the EU referendum [106].
September 2017 saw the Daily Mail venture into television production, partnering with Stage 29 Productions to launch DailyMailTV. This international news program, produced from studios in New York City with satellite operations in London, Sydney, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles, marked a significant expansion into broadcast media [107] [108]. Dr. Phil McGraw, representing Stage 29 Productions, was named as an executive producer [109]. The program quickly garnered recognition, earning a nomination for a Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Entertainment News Program in 2018 [110].
By May 2020, the Daily Mail achieved a notable milestone, ending The Sun's 42-year reign as the highest-circulation newspaper in the United Kingdom. The Daily Mail reported impressive average daily sales of 980,000 copies, while The Mail on Sunday recorded weekly sales of 878,000, underscoring its enduring appeal and market dominance [111].
In August 2022, during the intense July–September 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, the Daily Mail unequivocally expressed its support for Liz Truss, lauding her as the candidate with "the boldness, vision and strength of conviction to build on what Boris began..." [112]. This endorsement was a clear signal of the paper's continued alignment with the conservative wing of British politics.
Scottish, Irish, Continental, and Indian editions
Scottish Daily Mail
The Scottish Daily Mail header
The Scottish Daily Mail was initially launched as a distinct publication, printed from Edinburgh starting in December 1946 [113]. However, its circulation proved to be consistently poor, eventually falling below 100,000 copies. This led to a strategic decision to rebase its operations to Manchester in December 1968 [114]. A significant relaunch of the Scottish Daily Mail occurred in 1995, with printing operations subsequently moving to Glasgow. As of December 2019, it maintained an average circulation of 67,900 copies within Scotland [115].
Irish Daily Mail
• Main article: Irish Daily Mail
The Daily Mail made its official foray into the Irish market with the launch of a localized version of the paper on 6 February 2006. To generate buzz and attract initial readership, free copies of the paper were distributed in select locations on its launch day. The masthead of this Irish edition initially differentiated itself from its UK counterparts by featuring a green rectangle emblazoned with the word "IRISH," replacing the traditional Royal Arms. This design was later modified to simply display "Irish Daily Mail." The Irish version strategically integrates stories of specific Irish interest alongside content repurposed from the UK edition, aiming for broader local appeal. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations (UK), the Irish edition achieved a circulation of 63,511 copies in July 2007 [116], though this figure subsequently decreased to an average of 49,090 for the latter half of 2009 [117]. Furthermore, as of 24 September 2006, Ireland on Sunday, an Irish Sunday newspaper acquired by Associated Newspapers in 2001, was rebranded and replaced by an Irish edition of The Mail on Sunday (known as the Irish Mail on Sunday), thereby creating a cohesive brand presence alongside the weekday newspaper.
Continental and Overseas Daily Mail
Expanding its global footprint, two distinct foreign editions were launched in quick succession in 1904 and 1905. The first, titled the Overseas Daily Mail, aimed for a worldwide readership, while the second, the Continental Daily Mail, specifically targeted audiences across Europe and North Africa [36].
Mail Today
• Main article: Mail Today
The newspaper strategically entered the Indian market on 16 November 2007 with the launch of Mail Today [118]. This 48-page compact-sized newspaper was printed across Delhi, Gurgaon, and Noida, boasting an initial print run of 110,000 copies. Operating primarily on a subscription model, Mail Today was meticulously designed to mirror the aesthetic and editorial feel of the Daily Mail, benefiting from significant investment from Associated Newspapers and direct editorial assistance from the Daily Mail newsroom [119]. The paper's editorial stance demonstrated a flexible approach, alternating its support between the Congress-led UPA regime and the BJP-led NDA regime. Between 2010 and 2014, it notably championed the Kapil Sibal–led reforms aimed at restructuring the undergraduate curriculum at the University of Delhi [120]. In 2016, Mail Today was the first newspaper to break the controversial story concerning the raising of terror slogans in favor of the executed terrorist Afzal Guru on his death anniversary at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi [121].
Editorial stance
As a firmly right-wing tabloid [1] [2] [3], the Mail has historically functioned as a staunch supporter of the Conservative Party (UK). Its endorsements in every UK general election since 1945 have consistently favored the Conservatives, with one notable exception: the October 1974 UK general election, during which it advocated for a Liberal and Conservative coalition [122] [123] [124] [125]. While the paper maintained its overarching support for the Conservative Party in the 2015 general election, it pragmatically urged conservatively inclined voters to strategically back UKIP in specific constituencies, namely Heywood and Middleton, Dudley North (UK Parliament constituency), and Great Grimsby (UK Parliament constituency), where UKIP presented the primary challenge to the Labour Party (UK).
On the global stage, during the 2008 South Ossetia war between Russia and Georgia (country), the Mail condemned Russia for having "behaved with shocking arrogance and brutality." Yet, with a characteristic twist, it simultaneously accused the British government of needlessly escalating tensions with Russia and lambasted its perceived hypocrisy. The paper pointed to the British government's protests over Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia's independence, juxtaposing it with Britain's own recognition of Kosovo's independence from Russia's ally, Serbia [126]. This intricate stance underscored the paper's willingness to criticize both sides while maintaining a strong nationalistic undertone.
The Mail also took a firm editorial stance against the proliferation of genetically modified crops in the United Kingdom. In 2012, it published a prominent article by Joanna Blythman articulating strong opposition to their cultivation [127]. This position aligned with a broader skepticism often found within its pages regarding scientific advancements deemed "unnatural" or potentially risky.
Unsurprisingly, given its consistent Euroscepticism, the Daily Mail unequivocally endorsed voting to leave the European Union in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum [128]. Its campaign in favor of Brexit was robust, reflecting a long-held editorial position on British sovereignty and its relationship with the continent.
Awards
The Daily Mail has been consistently recognized at the British Press Awards, earning the prestigious National Newspaper of the Year title in 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2011, 2016, and most recently in 2019 [129]. A rather impressive collection for a publication that often courts controversy.
Individual journalists from the Daily Mail have also secured a range of British Press Awards, demonstrating a certain level of individual talent, even if the collective output sometimes raises eyebrows:
- "Campaign of the Year" for its relentless pursuit of justice in the Murder of Stephen Lawrence (2012).
- "Website of the Year" for Mail Online (2012), proving that clicks, at least, are a form of success.
- "News Team of the Year" for the Daily Mail itself (2012).
- "Critic of the Year" awarded to Quentin Letts (2010), a man whose opinions are rarely subtle [130].
- "Political Journalist of the Year" also to Quentin Letts (2009).
- "Specialist Journalist of the Year" to Stephen Wright (2009) [131].
- "Showbiz Reporter of the Year" to Benn Todd (2012), for meticulously cataloging the lives of the famous and infamous.
- "Feature Writer of the Year – Popular" to David Jones (2012).
- "Columnist of the Year – Popular" to Craig Brown (2012) and Peter Oborne (2016).
- "Best of Humour" – awarded to Craig Brown (2012), a rare moment of levity acknowledged.
- "Columnist – Popular" again to Craig Brown (2012).
- "Sports Reporter of the Year" to Jeff Powell (2005).
- "Sports Photographer of the Year" to Mike Egerton (2012) and Andy Hooper (2008, 2010, 2016).
- "Cartoonist of the Year" to Stanley 'MAC' McMurtry (2016), perhaps for his particularly provocative refugee cartoon, though the awards committee might not have specified.
- "Interviewer of the Year – Popular" to Jan Moir (2019), a choice that likely sparked its own round of complaints [132].
- "Columnist of the Year – Popular" to Sarah Vine (2019).
- "The Hugh McIlvanney Award for Sports Journalist of the Year" to Laura Lambert (2019).
- "Sports News Story" for its coverage of Saracens (2019).
- "News Reporter of the Year" to Tom Kelly, jointly with Claire Newell of The Daily Telegraph (2019).
Other notable awards include:
- "National Political/Government Reporting" to Josh Boswell (2023) from the Los Angeles Press Club [133].
- The "Orwell Prize" to Toby Harnden (2012).
- The "Hugh Cudlipp Award" (2012; Stephen Wright/Richard Pendlebury, 2009; 2007) [134].
Noted reporting
Suffragette
The term "suffragette" itself found its origin in the pages of the Daily Mail. It was first coined in 1906 by the journalist Charles E. Hands, intended as a derogatory label to describe the fervent activists within the movement advocating for women's suffrage, particularly members of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) [135] [136] [137]. However, in a remarkable act of defiance and reclamation, the very women Hands sought to ridicule embraced the term. They deliberately pronounced it "suffraGETtes" (hardening the 'g' sound), thereby transforming a sneering insult into a declaration of intent, implying not only their desire for the vote but their unwavering determination to 'get' it [138].
Zinoviev Letter
• Main article: Zinoviev letter
In 1924, just days before a pivotal general election in Britain, the Daily Mail published a sensational letter. This document, purportedly written by Grigory Zinoviev, then head of the Comintern, appeared to be a directive calling for a Bolshevik-style revolution within the United Kingdom. The letter's authenticity has since been definitively questioned, widely accepted as a sophisticated hoax designed to influence the election outcome, which it arguably did by contributing to the defeat of the Labour government.
Holes in the road
On 17 January 1967, the Mail published a story titled "The holes in our roads," highlighting the ubiquitous problem of potholes. The article cited specific examples, such as Blackburn, where it claimed there were an astonishing 4,000 holes. This rather mundane detail was subsequently immortalized, much to the paper's accidental fame, by John Lennon in The Beatles' iconic song "A Day in the Life." The same issue of the paper also carried an account of the tragic death of 21-year-old socialite Tara Browne in a car crash on 18 December 1966, another detail woven into the fabric of the song [139].
Unification Church
In 1981, the Daily Mail embarked on an extensive investigation into the Unification Church, colloquially known as the Moonies. The paper's reporting leveled serious accusations against the organization, alleging that it actively broke up marriages and engaged in the brainwashing of its converts [98]. The Unification Church, vehemently denying these claims, responded by suing the Daily Mail for libel. However, the lawsuit proved to be a resounding defeat for the Church. A jury ultimately awarded the Mail a then-record-breaking libel payout of £750,000, a sum equivalent to approximately £3,631,057 in 2023 [140]. In recognition of its tenacious reporting and successful defense, the paper was honored with a special British Press Award in 1983 for its "relentless campaign against the malignant practices of the Unification Church."
Gay gene controversy
On 16 July 1993, the Mail published a headline that ignited widespread controversy: "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding" [141] [142]. Among the numerous tabloid headlines that sensationalized the discovery of the Xq28 gene, the Mail's particular phrasing was singled out as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all" [143]. Critics argued it dangerously linked scientific discovery with eugenic implications, particularly concerning the potential for selective abortion based on genetic predisposition for homosexuality, highlighting the paper's tendency towards alarmist and ethically questionable reporting in the realm of science and social issues.
Stephen Lawrence
The Mail notably campaigned with considerable vigor for justice in the wake of the horrific murder of Stephen Lawrence in 1993. On 14 February 1997, the Mail's front page featured a provocative image of the five men accused of Lawrence's murder, emblazoned with the stark, accusatory headline "MURDERERS." Beneath it, a defiant challenge read: "if we are wrong, let them sue us" [144]. This bold editorial stance garnered significant praise from prominent journalists and campaigners such as Paul Foot (campaigner) and Peter Preston [145]. However, some journalists contended that the Mail's impassioned campaign represented a belated shift in its coverage of the Lawrence murder. They pointed to the newspaper's earlier focus on the alleged opportunistic behavior of anti-racist groups, exemplified by headlines like "How Race Militants Hijacked a Tragedy" (10 May 1993), and a perceived lack of comprehensive coverage in the initial years, noting only 20 articles over three years [146] [147].
Ultimately, two of the men prominently featured in the Mail's "Murderers" headline were found guilty of Stephen Lawrence's murder in 2012. Following the verdict, Lawrence's parents, alongside numerous political figures, publicly thanked the newspaper for its courageous stance and the significant potential financial risk it had undertaken with the audacious 1997 headline [148].
Stephen Gately
On 16 October 2009, an article penned by Jan Moir in the Daily Mail sparked an unprecedented uproar, criticizing various aspects of the life and untimely death of Stephen Gately, the Boyzone singer. Published just six days after his death and prior to his funeral, the article drew a record-breaking deluge of over 25,000 complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. It was widely condemned as insensitive, factually inaccurate, and deeply homophobic in its tone and content [149] [150]. Despite the overwhelming public outcry, the Press Complaints Commission ultimately did not uphold the complaints lodged against the article [151] [152]. In a significant fallout, major advertisers, including Marks & Spencer, chose to remove their advertisements from the Mail Online webpage hosting Moir's controversial piece [153].
Cannabis use
On 13 June 2011, a study conducted by Matt Jones and Michal Kucewicz [154], investigating the effects of cannabinoid receptor activation in the brain, was published in both The Journal of Neuroscience [154] [155] [156] and the esteemed British medical journal The Lancet [157]. This research subsequently garnered international attention, being featured in articles by reputable news outlets such as CBS News [158], Le Figaro [159], and Bild [160], among others.
However, in October 2011, the Daily Mail published an article that dramatically sensationalized this research, emblazoning it with the headline: "Just ONE cannabis joint can bring on schizophrenia as well as damaging memory." Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), an organization dedicated to ending drug prohibition, swiftly and sharply criticized the Daily Mail's report for its gross misrepresentation [161]. Matt Jones, a co-author of the original study, expressed his profound disappointment, stating he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the article, and explicitly clarified: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia" [161]. Dorothy Bishop, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at Oxford University, went so far as to award the Daily Mail the "Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation" on her blog, a scathing indictment of its scientific reporting [162] [163]. Faced with mounting criticism, the Mail eventually revised the article's headline to a slightly less egregious, though still alarmist, version: "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory" [164].
Ralph Miliband article
In September 2013, the Mail provoked widespread condemnation for an article concerning Ralph Miliband, the late father of then-Labour leader Ed Miliband and a prominent Marxist sociologist. The piece, titled "The Man Who Hated Britain," [165] [166] was deemed "ludicrously untrue" by Ed Miliband, who expressed being "appalled" and declared he was "not willing to see my father's good name be undermined in this way." Ralph Miliband had arrived in the UK as a Jewish refugee fleeing the Holocaust from Belgium. 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] linking it to historical tropes. Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith explicitly drew a connection between the article and the known Nazi sympathies of the 1st Viscount Rothermere, whose family continues to own the paper [166] [165] [168].
The paper, in an editorial, defended the general content of the article but conceded that its use of a photograph of Ralph Miliband's grave was an "error of judgement" [169]. The editorial further stated, with a chilling biblical reference, 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 spokesperson for the paper also dismissed claims that the article continued its history of anti-Semitism as "absolutely spurious" [171]. However, the specific reference to "the jealous God of Deuteronomy" was sharply criticized by Jonathan Freedland, who argued 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]. Freedland concluded that "those ready to acquit the Mail because there was no bald, outright statement of antisemitism were probably using the wrong measure," suggesting a more insidious form of bias [173].
Gawker Media lawsuit
In March 2015, James King, a former contract worker at the Mail's New York office, published a scathing article for Gawker titled 'My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online'. In this exposé, King alleged that the Mail's operational strategy involved systematically rewriting stories from other news outlets with minimal attribution, primarily to generate advertising clicks. He further claimed that staffers had knowingly published material they understood to be false and that the paper preferred to quietly delete stories from its website rather than issue corrections or admit mistakes [174].
In response, in September 2015, the Mail's US subsidiary, Mail Media, initiated a $1 million libel lawsuit against both King and Gawker Media [175]. Erik Wemple, writing for The Washington Post, expressed skepticism regarding the lawsuit's merits, noting that "Whatever the merits of King's story, it didn't exactly upend conventional wisdom" about the website's well-known aggregation strategy [176]. By November 2016, lawyers representing Gawker filed a motion to resolve the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, Gawker was not required to pay any financial compensation. Instead, it agreed to append an Editor's Note at the beginning of King's article, remove a specific illustration in the post that incorporated the Daily Mail's logo, and publish a statement from DailyMail.com within the same story [177] [178]. A rather quiet retreat, all things considered.
Anti-refugee cartoon
Following the tragic November 2015 Paris attacks [179], a cartoon published in the Daily Mail by Stanley McMurtry (known as "Mac") ignited a firestorm of controversy. The cartoon controversially depicted a link between the European migrant crisis, with a particular focus on Syria [180], and the terrorist attacks. It explicitly criticized the European Union's immigration laws for allegedly facilitating easy access for Islamist radicals into the United Kingdom [181]. Despite being widely compared to Nazi propaganda [182] and condemned as overtly racist, the cartoon surprisingly received a wave of praise on the Mail Online website [183]. A spokesperson for the Daily Mail, in a response to The Independent, stated: "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 (Amnesty International), the director of Amnesty International UK, sharply criticized the Daily Mail's cartoon for what she termed "reckless xenophobia" [184].
Anthony Weiner scandal
In September 2016, the Mail Online played a pivotal role in a major political scandal, publishing an extensive interview and screenshots provided by a 15-year-old girl. She alleged that the American politician Anthony Weiner had sent her sexually explicit images and messages [185]. This explosive revelation led directly to Weiner's separation from his wife, Huma Abedin, a high-profile aide to Hillary Clinton [185]. Weiner subsequently pleaded guilty in May 2017 to sending obscene material to a minor and was ultimately sentenced to 21 months in jail that September [186].
Campaigns against plastic pollution
The paper has, rather unexpectedly given some of its other editorial stances, actively campaigned against plastic pollution in various forms since 2008. Its efforts have included advocating for a levy on single-use plastic bags [17]. The Daily Mail's work in bringing the critical issue of plastic pollution to the forefront of public consciousness was notably commended by Erik Solheim, the head of the United Nations Environment Program, at a conference in Kenya in 2017 [187]. Emily Maitlis, the respected newscaster, even pointedly asked Green Party of England and Wales leader Caroline Lucas on Newsnight, "Is the biggest friend to the Environment at the moment the Daily Mail?" She suggested the paper had achieved more for environmental protection than the Green Party itself, in reference to its campaigns for a ban on plastic microbeads and other forms of plastic pollution. The environmental advocacy group ClientEarth has similarly recognized the paper's significant role in drawing attention to the plastic pollution problem, alongside the popular Blue Planet II documentary [188] [189].
Gary McKinnon deportation
The Daily Mail mounted a robust campaign against the attempts by the United States government to extradite Gary McKinnon, a British computer hacker. In 2002, McKinnon was accused of perpetrating what was described as the "biggest military computer hack of all time" [190]. McKinnon himself, however, maintained that his intentions were merely to uncover evidence of free energy suppression and a potential government cover-up of UFO activity and other technologies that could be beneficial to the public. The Daily Mail began its vocal support for McKinnon's cause in 2009, publishing a series of front-page stories vehemently protesting his potential deportation [191].
On 16 October 2012, following a protracted series of legal proceedings in Britain, then-Home Secretary Theresa May ultimately withdrew the extradition order to the United States. Gary McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, effusively praised the paper's crucial contribution to preventing her son's deportation in her book, stating: "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
In December 2017, the Daily Mail published a front-page story under the sensational headline "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 article detailed a judge's decision to award financial compensation to Abd Ali Hameed al-Waheed following his unlawful imprisonment. This headline was printed despite the crucial fact that during the trial itself, the judge explicitly concluded that claims of al-Waheed being "caught with a bomb" were "pure fiction."
In July 2018, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) intervened, ordering the paper to publish a front-page correction after determining that the newspaper had breached its rules on accuracy in its reporting of the case. The Daily Mail subsequently reported that a major internal investigation was conducted in the wake of the decision to publish the story. As a direct consequence, "strongly worded disciplinary notes were sent to seven senior members of staff," making it unequivocally clear "that if errors of the same nature were to happen again, their careers would be at risk" [194]. A rare moment of public accountability for the paper.
Doctored image of Korean soldiers in Ukraine
On 4 December 2024, the Daily Mail published an online story concerning the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War, featuring the alarming headline "Kim Jong Un sends North Korean women to fight as cannon fodder for Putin in Ukraine" [195]. The article was accompanied by a photograph purporting to show two Korean women in combat fatigues. [195] [196] However, it was swiftly revealed that the image was, in fact, an older photograph of two Russian soldiers whose facial features had been digitally altered, or "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]. A rather predictable outcome when one attempts to pass off manipulated imagery as genuine news.
Lawsuits
The Daily Mail, or rather its parent company Associated Newspapers, is no stranger to legal battles, both as a plaintiff and a defendant. Its history is dotted with high-profile lawsuits, many of which underscore the contentious nature of its journalism.
- In 2017, Paul Dacre, then editor of the Daily Mail, notably threatened the website Byline Investigates with legal action. He vehemently insisted on the immediate removal of three articles that delved into the Daily Mail's alleged use of private investigator Steve Whittamore, a matter that touched upon controversial journalistic practices [197] [198].
- On 15 November 2019, Byline Investigates published court documents related to a lawsuit initiated by Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, against the Daily Mail. In her legal filing, she accused the newspaper of orchestrating a sustained campaign of "untrue" stories against her, highlighting what she perceived as a pattern of malicious reporting [199] [200] [201] [202].
Successful lawsuits against the Mail
A number of individuals have successfully pursued legal action against the Daily Mail for libel and other journalistic transgressions, securing significant damages and, occasionally, apologies.
- In February 2001, businessman Alan Sugar was awarded a substantial £100,000 in damages. This followed a story published by the Mail that commented critically on his stewardship of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club, which was found to be defamatory [203].
- October 2003 saw actress Diana Rigg receive £30,000 in damages after the paper published a story that made unwarranted comments about aspects of her personality, proving that even public figures have limits to what they will tolerate [204].
- In May 2006, the musician Elton John was awarded £100,000 in damages. This payout was a consequence of false accusations made by the Mail concerning his manners and behavior, highlighting the paper's sometimes casual relationship with facts [205].
- January 2009 brought a £30,000 award to Austen Ivereigh, a former associate of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. This case stemmed from false accusations made by the newspaper regarding his stance on abortion, demonstrating the paper's willingness to wade into sensitive ethical debates with sometimes reckless abandon [206].
- July 2010 witnessed a £47,500 award to Parameswaran Subramanyam. The Mail had falsely claimed that he secretly sustained himself with hamburgers during a 23-day hunger strike in Parliament Square, a protest aimed at drawing attention to the protests against the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009. The notion of a secret burger stash during a hunger strike is certainly peak tabloid fodder [207].
- In November 2011, former lifestyle adviser Carole Caplin received damages over claims in the Mail that she intended to reveal intimate details about her former clients, underscoring the legal risks of speculative gossip [208].
- May 2014 saw author J. K. Rowling receive "substantial damages" and a public apology from the Mail. The newspaper had made a false claim about a story Rowling had written for the website of Gingerbread (charity), a charity supporting single parents, proving that even beloved authors are not immune to the paper's inaccuracies [209].
- April 2017, First Lady of the United States, Melania Trump, secured an undisclosed settlement over claims in the Mail that she had worked as an escort in the 1990s [210]. She had initiated litigation in September 2016, specifically targeting an article that discussed escort allegations, despite the article itself including rebuttals and stating a lack of evidence. The Mail expressed regret for any misinterpretation and removed the article from its website [211]. Trump initially filed a lawsuit in Maryland, seeking 150 million [213].
- June 2018, Earl Spencer accepted undisclosed libel damages from Associated Newspapers over a claim that he had acted in an "unbrotherly, heartless and callous way" towards his sister Diana, Princess of Wales. A rather personal attack to be found in print [214].
- In June 2019, Associated Newspapers paid £120,000 in damages, plus costs, to Interpal, a UK-based charity. The Mail had falsely accused the charity of funding a "hate festival" in Palestine that allegedly enacted the murder of Jews, a particularly egregious and baseless accusation [215].
- November 2020 saw the Mail agree to pay libel damages of £25,000 and issue an apology for the distress caused to University of Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal. The paper had falsely claimed she "was attempting to incite an aggressive and potentially violent race war," a serious charge to level against an academic [216].
- December 2020: The Mail paid businessman James Dyson and his wife Lady Deirdre Dyson £100,000 in libel damages after publishing suggestions that they had behaved improperly towards their former housekeeper, proving that even the wealthiest are not immune from the paper's scrutiny [217].
- January 2021: Associated Newspapers paid damages and apologized to a British Pakistani couple. The paper had made false allegations against them regarding their professional work as counter-extremism experts, demonstrating a willingness to misrepresent individuals in sensitive fields [218].
- May 2021: Associated Newspapers paid substantial damages and issued an apology after revealing the identity of a complainant in a rape case against film director Luc Besson, a serious breach of journalistic ethics concerning victim anonymity [219].
Unsuccessful lawsuits
Not every legal challenge against the Daily Mail has succeeded; the paper has also emerged victorious in several high-profile cases, reinforcing its reputation for aggressive defense.
- In April 1981, in a landmark case, the Daily Mail successfully defended itself against a libel suit brought by the Unification Church. The Church had sued for £750,000 over articles detailing its recruitment methods and alleged brainwashing. Margaret Singer, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Berkeley, notably testified that the Mail's accounts of these methods were accurate. The trial, lasting over five months, became one of Britain's longest-ever civil proceedings, a testament to the intensity of the legal battle [220].
- February 2012 saw Nathaniel Rothschild, 5th Baron Rothschild lose his libel case against the Daily Mail. The High Court ultimately agreed with the paper's assertion that he was indeed the "Puppet Master" for Peter Mandelson, finding that Rothschild's conduct had been "inappropriate in a number of respects" and that the words used by the Daily Mail were "substantially true" [221] [222].
- May 2012, Carina Trimingham, the partner of former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Chris Huhne, was ordered to pay over £400,000 after her High Court claims for damages, alleging breach of privacy and harassment against the Daily Mail, were dismissed [223]. This case was intertwined with a broader scandal: Huhne, while married, had an affair with Trimingham—who herself was in a lesbian civil partnership—and subsequently left his wife Vicky Pryce for Trimingham. This series of events, along with other incidents involving Pryce and Huhne, led to his resignation from the Cabinet and the criminal prosecution R v Huhne and Pryce, where both were arrested for perverting the course of justice [224].
- In 2021, former US congress representative Katie Hill was judicially ordered to reimburse the Daily Mail and other defendants $220,000 for legal fees. These fees were incurred defending themselves against what were ultimately deemed baseless revenge porn claims raised by Hill, a rather costly defeat for the plaintiff [225] [226].
Legal action by the Daily Mail
In March 2021, Associated Newspapers issued a formal letter to ViacomCBS, demanding the removal of an image purporting to be a Daily Mail headline from the broadcast of Oprah with Meghan and Harry. The headline shown in the broadcast, "Meghan's seed will taint our Royal Family," had been digitally altered to remove the crucial context that it was a direct quotation from an unrelated politician, thereby misrepresenting its original meaning and source [227].
Criticism
This "criticism" or "controversy" section may compromise the article's neutrality. Please help integrate negative information into other sections or remove undue focus on minor aspects through discussion on the talk page. (August 2020)
Paying for footage under investigation
In 2015, in the immediate aftermath of the horrific November 2015 Paris attacks, French police meticulously reviewed the CCTV footage from the targeted restaurant, La Casa Nostra. After securing a copy on a USB flash drive, the police explicitly instructed a technician from the CCTV company to encrypt the footage, emphasizing its confidentiality as part of an ongoing investigation. However, freelance journalist Djaffer Ait Aoudia subsequently revealed to The Guardian that he had secretly filmed a Daily Mail representative negotiating with the restaurant owner to purchase the very same CCTV footage of the attacks. The café owner reportedly agreed to supply the footage for €50,000 and promptly requested an IT technician to make the encrypted footage accessible again [228]. The Daily Mail, in its defense, issued a statement: "There is nothing controversial about the Mail's acquisition of this video, a copy of which the police already had in their possession." Curiously, The Guardian itself briefly embedded the footage on its own website before swiftly removing it, perhaps realizing the ethical quandary involved.
Byline removal
In 2017, evoke.ie, the Daily Mail's showbiz site, found itself in hot water after being reported to the internship program of Dublin City University. The complaint stemmed from the discovery that the bylines of hundreds of articles written by student interns had been unceremoniously changed, effectively erasing their authorship and raising questions about journalistic credit and ethical practices [229].
Sensationalism
The newspaper has faced consistent criticism for its often sensationalist and disproportionate coverage of various topics. Its pages are frequently dominated by the lives of celebrities, [230] extending even to the children of celebrities, [231] a fascination that can border on the obsessive. Property prices also receive extensive, often alarmist, coverage, contributing to a constant hum of anxiety among homeowners and aspiring buyers [232]. Perhaps most controversially, the Daily Mail's depiction of asylum seekers has drawn severe condemnation [233]. This particular aspect of its reporting was a subject of intense discussion in the Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2007, [234] [235] highlighting serious concerns about its potential to foster xenophobia and prejudice.
Reliability
The Daily Mail's approach to medical and science journalism has been a frequent target of criticism from both doctors and scientists. Accusations range from using minor, preliminary studies to concoct alarming scare stories to outright misleading its readership [19] [236]. Ben Goldacre, a prominent critic of bad science reporting, famously quipped in The Guardian that the Daily Mail has an "ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer" [18]. In 2011, the Daily Mail published an article with the headline "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 cited in the article, was quoted by Cannabis Law Reform as explicitly stating: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia," a direct refutation of the paper's alarmist interpretation [238].
Carbon Brief, an organization focused on climate science, lodged a complaint with the Press Complaints Commission regarding a Daily Mail article titled "Hidden green tax in fuel bills: How a £200 stealth charge is slipped on to your gas and electricity bills." The complaint centered on the fact that the £200 figure was entirely unexplained, unreferenced, and, according to Ofgem, demonstrably incorrect. The Daily Mail quietly removed the article from its website without further comment, a common tactic when faced with factual inaccuracies [239] [240] [241].
In 2013, the Met Office publicly criticized a Daily Mail article on climate change written by James Delingpole, citing that it contained "a series of factual inaccuracies" [242]. In response, the Daily Mail published a letter from the Met Office chairman on its letters page and offered to append the letter to Delingpole's original article, a limited form of correction [243].
In August 2018, the Mail Online deleted a lengthy news article titled "Powder Keg Paris" by journalist Andrew Malone. The article, which focused on "illegal migrants" in the Paris suburb of Saint Denis, faced a barrage of criticism on social media for numerous apparent inaccuracies, including mistaking Saint-Denis, the city, for Seine-Saint-Denis, the larger department northeast of Paris. Local councilor Majid Messaoudene stated that the article was clearly designed to "stigmatise" and "harm" the area and its residents. The journalist, Andrew Malone, subsequently deleted his Twitter account [244] [245]. In 2019, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) ruled against the Daily Mail, confirming in its judgment that the article was indeed inaccurate [246] [247].
In early 2019, the mobile version of the Microsoft Edge web browser began displaying a warning to visitors accessing the MailOnline site. This warning, facilitated by its NewsGuard plugin, explicitly stated 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]. However, in late January 2019, the status of the MailOnline was surprisingly changed by the NewsGuard Plugin from Red to Green. The updated verdict now claimed that "this website generally maintains basic standards of accuracy and accountability." An Editor's Note from NewsGuard explained this reversal, stating: "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]. A rather convenient shift, one might observe.
Wikipedia determination of unreliability
• This section is an excerpt from Perennial sources list § Daily Mail .[edit]
In February 2017, following a formal and extensive community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia took the unprecedented step of banning the use of the Daily Mail as a source in most instances [250] [251] [252]. Its use as a reference for factual claims is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist" [253] [250] [254], and it can no longer be cited as proof of notability for article subjects [250]. The Daily Mail can, however, still be utilized as a source in an about-self fashion, meaning when the Daily Mail itself is the direct subject of discussion or reporting [255] [256]. The overwhelming support for this ban was rooted in "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication" [253] [250] [251]. While some users voiced opposition, arguing that the paper is "actually reliable for some subjects" and "may have been more reliable historically," [257] the decision stood. Consequently, the Daily Mail earned the dubious distinction of becoming the first deprecated source on English Wikipedia [252].
Wikipedia's decision to ban the Daily Mail as a reliable source generated a significant amount of media attention, particularly within the British press [256]. Although the Daily Mail vigorously contested this ruling by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales publicly backed the community's choice. He stated