Once more, all bullshit, no facts.
Doesn't negate the fact that 80 million Americans visit the the US edition of the Daily Mail each month. I expect the above research excluded the Daily Mail. It doesn't sell physical newspapers in the US, so circulation figures are not applicableThe following is a list of the top 10 newspapers in the United States by average weekday paid circulation in 2019.
Newspaper Primary service area Headquarters Circulation Owner Nameplate USA Today National McLean, Virginia 1,621,091 Gannett Company The Wall Street Journal National New York City 1,011,200 News Corp The New York Times National New York City 483,701 The New York Times Company New York Post New York metropolitan area New York City 426,129 News Corp Los Angeles Times Los Angeles metropolitan area El Segundo, California 417,936 Nant Capital The Washington Post Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. 254,379 Nash Holdings Star Tribune Minneapolis-Saint Paul Minneapolis, Minnesota 251,822 Star Tribune Media Company Newsday Long Island, New York Melville, New York 251,473 Newsday Media Group Chicago Tribune Chicago metropolitan area Chicago, Illinois 238,103 Tribune Publishing Company The Boston Globe Boston metropolitan area Boston, Massachusetts 230,756 Boston Globe Media Partners
The most popular
news websites in America
The most popular and the most famous news website
The 2nd most popular and the 6th most famous news website
The 3rd most popular and the 4th most famous news website
The 4th most popular and the 2nd most famous news website
The 5th most popular and the 3rd most famous news website
- COVID-19 behavioural data for health organisations, media and businesses
See YouGov COVID-19 Monitor
The 6th most popular and the 7th most famous news website
The 7th most popular and the 5th most famous news website
The 8th most popular and the 10th most famous news website
The 9th most popular and the 8th most famous news website
The 10th most popular and the 11th most famous news website
The 11th most popular and the 14th most famous news website
NPR NewsMOBILE APPLICATION
The 12th most popular and the 25th most famous news website
The Huffington PostWEBSITE
The 13th most popular and the 13th most famous news website
The 14th most popular and the 9th most famous news website
The 15th most popular and the 23rd most famous news website
The 16th most popular and the 16th most famous news website
The 17th most popular and the 24th most famous news website
The 18th most popular and the 12th most famous news website
The 19th most popular and the 17th most famous news website
The 20th most popular and the 15th most famous news website
Doesn't negate the fact that 80 million Americans visit the the US edition of the Daily Mail each month. I expect the above research excluded the Daily Mail. It doesn't sell physical newspapers in the US, so circulation figures are not applicable
The Daily Mail is still getting 80 million visits a month in the USA, you can find those figures if you care to look. It is a newspaper and whilst a soiled tabloid, it's still very popular in the USA. My point was, it does have visibility in the US and has offices on the West and East coast doing the American edition, which seems quite popular.The second list is the list of most popular online news sites in the US, by monthly visits. No show of Daily Mail. Of course you expect a fact-based approach to exclude your own factless commentary, cause otherwise you have to admit that once more you don't know what you are talking about.
Moreover, this is one of your bullshit rabbit holes, Pimpy. Daily Mail is a right-wing platform often publishing inaccurate, misleading and plain false information, and there's plenty of proof of this. If you want to put them on the list of "people talking about Trump", they definitely belong in the camp of Fox et al.
Moot point, as The Daily Mail is extremely popular in the USA, which what I was getting at, when challenged that The Daily Mail had no readership in the US. Which is quite demonstrably false.I know as a Brit this is basically impossible for you to grasp, but no one in America considers tabloids news. Tabloids are where you laugh a things like bat Boy. The Brit fascination with tabloids is something I will never understand.
It's a tabloid as well. As mind boggling as it is, the UK has literally a single actual newspaper, the Times of London. Two if you count the FT, which is more of an international paper in my mind.I now it's difficult to accept The Guardian is not the world's go to Brit and English language newspaper.
It's a tabloid as well. As mind boggling as it is, the UK has literally a single actual newspaper, the Times of London. Two if you count the FT, which is more of an international paper in my mind.
Can you please point me to those figures that you say you've seen. I haven't been able to find them. I've shown my facts. Either put up, or shut up.The Daily Mail is still getting 80 million visits a month in the USA, you can find those figures if you care to look. It is a newspaper and whilst a soiled tabloid, it's still very popular in the USA. My point was, it does have visibility in the US and has offices on the West and East coast doing the American edition, which seems quite popular.
It was consistently anti-Trump throughout the Presidency.
No, do your own research. Seek and ye shall find within 2 or 3 searches.Can you please point me to those figures that you say you've seen. I haven't been able to find them. I've shown my facts. Either put up, or shut up.
You miss my point entirely....More BS. Daily Mail is as right-wing as they come. And a tabloid. Your argument for "daily Trump hating sessions instead of focusing on Biden" is solely based on right wing platforms like Daily Mail being the ones talking about him. So 100% factless BS.
Relax Cuckley it is an obvious winwin by trashing Trump they make sure he and his hideous spawn become pariahs while at the same time making sure he gets a shot at running again next time. Trust the plan!
No, do your own research. Seek and ye shall find within 2 or 3 searches.
When you ultimately and deliberately fail, I will indulge your willful ignorance.
But not before.
I never said excellent or approved. I said liberal media is not focusing on Trump, right wing media is. One more time you distort as your argumentCNN ran with a headline earlier today on Trump, as the leading article. That was one of the verified true and excellent approved news agencies you cited as operating above and beyond all of that.
From my perspective they haven't. Which brings me back to close to my original posting, which was not in support of The Daily Mail, it was against the idiotic piece that my mum had been suckered into believing.
And yet, despite it all, The Daily Mail remains one of the most, if not the most successful English speaking rags in the world. Including in the US which you are reluctant to acknowledge.
lol. You Sir are simply the epitome of baseless and ignorant superiority.
I’ve done MY research, I’m not doing yours. As long as you fail to point me to a set of facts that contradicts or disproves the ones I’ve shared, you remain a factless troll.
So ignorance is genetic then. No surprise there.
This is still an unsubstantiated claim that is not backed by evidence.
And even if it was, see point above. Daily Mail is right wing, not liberal.
Wiki even included their sources:
The website was disallowed as reliable material for Wikipedia citations."
- July 2014: The MailOnline admitted having published an entirely false story about George Clooney and the family of his fiancée.
- April 2016: Martin Fletcher wrote in the New Statesman about travelling to Iraq and writing a piece for The Times, then seeing his piece appear on MailOnline under someone else's byline "within five hours".
- February 2017: Wikipedia bans MailOnline citations as unreliable content.
- April 2017: The Sun threatened MailOnline with legal action over copyright infringement regarding a Sun exclusive video. According to a Sun executive, MailOnline was seen as responsible for blatant "piracy".
- July 2017: The Sun and the MailOnline drew criticism over the online posting of nude photos of Jodie Whittaker, the first women to play the character of The Doctor in the British television show Doctor Who.
- January 2019: as part of its feature designed to fight fake news, Microsoft Edge began to warn users against trusting MailOnline content, asserting 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". This was overturned a week later.
- June 2019: MailOnline has been blocked in China and remains inaccessible for unknown reasons.
2. Similarly, your BBC article is from 2012. It cites Comscore data from 2011-2012.
You could even argue that we have the Mail to thank for President Trump: They were the ones who broke the Anthony Weiner sexting story that prompted the feds to seize Weiner’s laptop just weeks before the 2016 election.
This one you actually got correct, congrats!!!So, yes Sir, indeed, I am the epitome of baseless and fact less ignorance, all hideous traits inherited from my mother's side.
Oh Pimpy Pimpy, your relentless and frankly ridiculous effort to prove me wrong is so much fun to watch. Like watching my dogs trying to get outside when the door is closed. They can't avoid hitting their heads against the glass. Just like you and your failed crusade to introduce evidence that is meaningless. You suggest I should do my homework (which I did). Are you this sloppy with your work too? Must be pretty embarrassing to watch.
Let me take 20 minutes this morning to show how inaccurate, biased and ridiculous your argument is.
1. Your wikipedia article cites data from 2014. The sources it cites are also outdated. The article has been barely updated since. Here are, however, the updates since 2014 (from the same article):
I followed the cited data source, abc (Audit Bureau of Circulations, a UK entity). MailOnline is no longer registered, and DailyMail shows a circulation of 1m in the UK.
As a reminder, the data I quoted is from 2020. So while I appreciate your contribution, it's as valuable as your beloved Mother's whatsapp.
2. Similarly, your BBC article is from 2012. It cites Comscore data from 2011-2012.
I went onto Comscore's website: None of the daily mail platforms show up in the rankings (top 50). Knock yourself out: https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings
3. You are citing Vanity Fair now. I don't even need to get started on this one. And clearly, you haven't read the piece, because it does a terrific job at discrediting MailOnline as a credible source for anything other than news on the Kardashians, George Clooney (apparently not even), Megan, and Harry.
It does, however, cite the now Pimpy-famous "80m readers in the US". Unfortunately, these are "internal company metrics". Allow me to take those with a healthy grain of salt.
I did find this comment quite funny though:
So, to summarise: all bollocks, no facts. Go find something that works, or shut up.
This one you actually got correct, congrats!!!
Condemned by a fellow conservative!
Steady yourself now, you might reach escape velocity all too soon...
I've demonstrated my position with sources and evidence.
The only other point I would like to take you up on: ''You are citing Vanity Fair now. I don't even need to get started on this one....'' What's wrong with them? A well respected magazine of current affairs, popular culture and style. Lots of serious journalists, critics and columnists plus photographers. Including as staff writer, the late, great and sadly missed, Christopher Hitchens.