To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian.
How about faceless aliens spotted at Wimbledon ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031062/Faceless-ali...
Or this one ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491757/First-picture...
or this ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1160904/Resea...
I rest my case.
It then goes on to speculate that they're part of a viral marketing campaign or celebrities in disguise.
Lightweight and lowbrow, sure, but they aren't just making up tabloid lies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/10/india.internatio...
The third was covered in the Independent, a (former) broadsheet which I think most would consider as respectable as the Guardian: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-bra...
[edit] And the first story was covered in the Telegraph, another broadsheet: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2238...
The news in the Mail might be a bit hyped but it's not "wildly inaccurate". I don't read it either, and wouldn't, but it's not exactly The Daily Sport.
Indeed, but the pictures were left out. Maybe someone had that rare quality called tact ?
Tabloids by their nature print many more photos.
http://www.dollymix.tv/2008/05/how_the_daily_mail_misreprese...
http://5cc.blogspot.com/2007/05/how-daily-mail-lies-about-im...
Of course, now you can say that's just two examples, and then I can go back and find another 10, and so on.
My parents buy it, so I've read it fairly often at their house, but, no, I wouldn't buy it myself. So yes, I have read it on many occasions, while most of those who bash it do so without having ever read a copy.
To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian.
I didn't put them in the same column: as I said, the Mail is a tabloid. All I said is that both are heavily biased, which is true. Each writes with its own audience in mind: Guardian readers won't like what's written in the Mail, and vice-versa. Accusations beyond this, such as yours of "wildly inaccurate journalism", are more exaggerated and sensational than any Mail headline.