The Daily Mail is a troubling news source. They have a problem whereby ads are disguised as genuine news stories, and this isn't always immediately obvious. They have many news stories that focus on science and health, and in the past, they have resembled scare stories based on "a source" rather than someone(s) who has been peer-reviewed and certified.

Once in a while, the Daily Mail has some redeeming factors such as supporting a campaign or demanding justice for someone(s) who has not received it. Though, the rest of it is long-lens photos of celebrities wearing next to nothing, rampant criticism of Harry and Meghan for anything they say or do, obsessed with "wokeness" despite not knowing the true definition of the word, and dipping their toe into fake culture war nonsense.

Their comments boards have a reputation for being highly toxic. I disagree with that. I would give that award to the LBC Facebook page which is a lot worse. The Daily Mail does understand its readers very well, and for some stories that focus on race, religion, sexuality, and certain crimes, they implement moderation which is fully justified.

Opinion or news? It is often the case that an article on the site is a fully loaded opinion piece, but I do not think it is clear whether is such or a news piece. This hinders the Mail's newsworthiness and whether it is credible or reliable. In journalism, it is standard that a journalist should have at least 2 supporting sources for a news story, but they do not always make clear of who their sources are, "a Daily Mail source", and sometimes do they do not publish who wrote the story, "A Daily Mail Reporter".