Editing Daily Mail (section)

==Noted reporting==

===Suffragette===
The term "[[suffragette]]" was first used in 1906, as a term of derision by the journalist Charles E. Hands in the ''Mail'' to describe activists in the movement for women's suffrage, in particular members of the [[WSPU]].<ref>Crawford, Elizabeth (1999). ''The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide, 1866–1928.'' p. 452. London: UCL Press. {{ISBN|978-1-841-42031-8}}.</ref><ref>Walsh, Ben. ''GCSE Modern World History'' second edition (Hodder Murray, 2008) p. 60.</ref><ref>"Mr. Balfour and the 'Suffragettes.' Hecklers Disarmed by the Ex-Premier's Patience." ''Daily Mail'', 10 January 1906, p.&nbsp;5.{{pb}}M{{cite book|last1=Holton|first1=Sandra Stanley|title=Suffrage Days: Stories From the Women's Suffrage Movement|date=2002|publisher=Routledge|location=London and New York|page=253}}</ref> However, the women he intended to ridicule embraced the term, saying "suffraGETtes" (hardening the 'g'), implying not only that they wanted the vote, but that they intended to 'get' it.<ref>Colmore, Gertrude. ''Suffragette Sally''. Broadview Press, 2007, p. 14</ref>

===Zinoviev Letter===
{{main|Zinoviev letter}}
In 1924, the ''Daily Mail'' published a letter before the elections in Britain. the letter was purportedly written by [[Grigory Zinoviev]] to call for Bolshevik-like revolution in UK. The letter's authenticity has since been questioned.

===Holes in the road===
On 17 January 1967, the ''Mail'' published a story, "The holes in our roads", about [[pothole]]s, giving the examples of [[Blackburn]] where it said there were 4,000 holes. This detail was then immortalised by [[John Lennon]] in [[The Beatles]] song "[[A Day in the Life]]", along with an account of the death of 21-year-old [[socialite]] [[Tara Browne]] in a car crash on 18 December 1966, which also appeared in the same issue.<ref>{{cite journal|title = The Origins of "A Day in the Life"|publisher=Apple Corps|journal=The Beatles: Selected Items from My Personal Memorabilia Collection}}</ref>

===Unification Church===
In 1981, the ''Daily Mail'' ran an investigation into the [[Unification Church]], nicknamed the Moonies, accusing them of ending marriages and brainwashing converts.<ref name="Lancaster-1998"/> The Unification Church, which always denied these claims, sued for libel but lost heavily. A jury awarded the ''Mail'' a then record-breaking £750,000 libel payout ({{Inflation|UK|750000|1981|fmt=eq|cursign=£}}). In 1983 the paper won a special [[British Press Awards|British Press Award]] for a "relentless campaign against the malignant practices of the Unification Church."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20150922154735/https://news.google.com/newspapers?&dat=19810401&id=RbdAAAAAIBAJ&pg=2933,27383 "£750,000 in costs as Moonies lose marathon libel action", ''Glasgow Herald'', 1 April 1981. p. 3]</ref>

===Gay gene controversy===
On 16 July 1993, the ''Mail'' ran the headline "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".<ref>{{cite news|author=Steve Connor|title=The 'gay gene' is back on the scene|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-gay-gene-is-back-on-the-scene-1536770.html|location=UK|date=1 November 1995|access-date=30 April 2010|work=The Independent|archive-date=15 January 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100115183231/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-gay-gene-is-back-on-the-scene-1536770.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Shea|first1=Matthew|last2=Lewis|first2=Jacob|title=We Spent Yesterday Talking to People Who Are Hated by the Daily Mail|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/people-are-tired-of-being-bullied-by-the-daily-mail/|access-date=29 June 2015|publisher=[[VICE News]]|date=7 October 2013|quote=It's the latest nasty accusation to be levelled at a 'paper that has a long history of this kind of thing – the Miliband controversy joining an outrage canon that includes Jan Moir's smear of the dead gay popstar Stephen Gately, and headlines like "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding" and "Muslim gang jailed for kidnapping and raping two girls as part of their Eid celebrations".|archive-date=27 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140227070938/http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/people-are-tired-of-being-bullied-by-the-daily-mail|url-status=live}}</ref> Of the tabloid headlines which commented on the [[Xq28]] gene, the Mail's was criticised as "perhaps the most infamous and disturbing headline of all".<ref>{{cite book|title = The nature of difference: science, society, and human biology|author = George T. H. Ellison and Alan H. Goodman|publisher = Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, Wellcome Trust|year = 2006|page = 106|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=r-b3sJvXBj0C&pg=PA106|isbn = 978-0-8493-2720-9|access-date = 10 November 2020|archive-date = 26 April 2013|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130426101749/http://books.google.com/books?id=r-b3sJvXBj0C&pg=PA106|url-status = live}}</ref>

===Stephen Lawrence===
The ''Mail'' campaigned vigorously for justice over the [[murder of Stephen Lawrence]] in 1993. On 14 February 1997, the ''Mail'' front page pictured the five men accused of Lawrence's murder with the headline "MURDERERS", stating "if we are wrong, let them sue us".<ref>May, Margaret; Page, Robert M.; Brunsdon, Edward (2001). ''Understanding social problems: issues in social policy.'' Wiley-Blackwell. p. 272.</ref> This attracted praise from [[Paul Foot (campaigner)|Paul Foot]] and [[Peter Preston]].<ref>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K8reOOY24nEC&pg=PA272|title=Investigative Journalism: Context and Practice|author=Hugo de Burgh|chapter=ch. 16 Journalism with attitude|isbn=978-0-415-44144-5|year=2008|publisher=Routledge|access-date=10 November 2020|archive-date=17 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217075455/https://books.google.com/books?id=K8reOOY24nEC&pg=PA272|url-status=live}}</ref> Some journalists contended the ''Mail'' had belatedly changed its stance on the Lawrence murder, with the newspaper's earlier focus being the alleged opportunistic behaviour of anti-racist groups ("How Race Militants Hijacked a Tragedy", 10 May 1993) and alleged insufficient coverage of the case (20 articles in three years).<ref>{{cite news|author = Leader|title = Trial by the Daily Mail|newspaper = [[The Guardian]]|url = https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1997/feb/15/lawrence.ukcrime1|location = UK|date = 15 February 1997|access-date = 2 February 2012|archive-date = 12 May 2017|archive-url = https://archive.today/20170512081429/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1997/feb/15/lawrence.ukcrime1|url-status = live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|author = Street of Shame|title = Second-Class Mail|magazine= [[Private Eye]] 1305|location = UK|date = 12 January 2012}}</ref>

Two men who the ''Mail'' had featured in their "Murderers" headline were found guilty in 2012 of murdering Lawrence. After the verdict, Lawrence's parents and numerous political figures thanked the newspaper for taking the potential financial risk involved with the 1997 headline.<ref>{{cite news|last1=O'Carroll|first1=Lisa|title=Stephen Lawrence's parents thank Daily Mail for 'going out on a limb'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/04/stephen-lawrence-parents-daily-mail|access-date=28 September 2017|work=The Guardian|date=4 January 2012|archive-date=29 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170929044940/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/jan/04/stephen-lawrence-parents-daily-mail|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Stephen Gately===
On 16 October 2009, a [[Jan Moir]] article criticised aspects of the life and death of [[Stephen Gately]]. It was published six days after his death and before his funeral. The [[Press Complaints Commission]] received over 25,000 complaints, a record number, regarding the timing and content of the article. It was criticised as insensitive, inaccurate and [[Homophobia|homophobic]].<ref>{{cite news|title=Daily Mail column on Stephen Gately death provokes record complaints|url=https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone|location=UK|first=Robert|last=Booth|date=16 October 2009|access-date=30 April 2010|newspaper=The Guardian|archive-date=26 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091026071152/http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-boyzone|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Irish Daily Mail disowns Jan Moir|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/20/jan-moir-irish-daily-mail|location=UK|first=Stephen|last=Brook|date=20 October 2009|access-date=30 April 2010|newspaper=The Guardian|archive-date=8 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908042813/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/20/jan-moir-irish-daily-mail|url-status=live}}</ref> The Press Complaints Commission did not uphold complaints about the article.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NjIyOA|title=Press Complaints Commission >> Adjudicated Complaints >> Mr Andrew Cowles|website=www.pcc.org.uk|access-date=11 February 2019|archive-date=12 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190212070626/http://www.pcc.org.uk/cases/adjudicated.html?article=NjIyOA|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/18/pcc-jan-moir-stephen-gately-brave-ruling|title=The PCC's brave ruling over Jan Moir and Stephen Gately {{!}} Jonathan Heawood|last=Heawood|first=Jonathan|date=18 February 2010|work=The Guardian|access-date=11 February 2019|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-date=12 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190212011430/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/18/pcc-jan-moir-stephen-gately-brave-ruling|url-status=live}}</ref> Major advertisers, such as [[Marks & Spencer]], had their adverts removed from the ''Mail Online'' webpage containing Moir's article.<ref>{{cite news|title=Marks & Spencer asks to pull ad from Mail article on Stephen Gately's death|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir-complaints|location=UK|first=Chris|last=Tryhorn|date=16 October 2009|access-date=30 April 2010|newspaper=The Guardian|archive-date=8 September 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130908042751/http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir-complaints|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Cannabis use===
On 13 June 2011, a study by Matt Jones and Michal Kucewicz<ref name="Kucewicz-2011">{{cite journal |url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025172633.htm |title=How cannabis causes 'cognitive chaos' in the brain |doi=10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2970-11.2011 |journal=The Journal of Neuroscience |date=25 October 2011 |pmid=22031901 |access-date=12 March 2012 |last1=Kucewicz |first1=M. T. |last2=Tricklebank |first2=M. D. |last3=Bogacz |first3=R. |last4=Jones |first4=M. W. |volume=31 |issue=43 |pages=15560–8 |pmc=6703515 |archive-date=6 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120306112652/http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111025172633.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> on the effects of cannabinoid receptor activation in the brain was published in ''[[The Journal of Neuroscience]]''<ref name="Kucewicz-2011"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bris.ac.uk/synaptic/people/153538/publications.html|title=Dr Matt Jones – MRC Centre for Synaptic Plasticity publications|publisher=Bris|date=14 April 2011|access-date=12 March 2012|archive-date=23 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923221334/http://www.bris.ac.uk/synaptic/people/153538/publications.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Dysfunctional Prefrontal Cortical Network Activity and Interactions following Cannabinoid Receptor Activation|publisher=Jneurosci|date=26 October 2011|doi=10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2970-11.2011|last1=Kucewicz|first1=M. T.|last2=Tricklebank|first2=M. D.|last3=Bogacz|first3=R.|last4=Jones|first4=M. W.|journal=Journal of Neuroscience|volume=31|issue=43|pages=15560–15568|pmid=22031901|pmc=6703515}}</ref> and the British medical journal ''[[The Lancet]]''.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12363|title=Cannabis use increases risk of psychotic illness – health – 27 July 2007|magazine=New Scientist|access-date=12 March 2012|archive-date=20 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220100411/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12363|url-status=live}}</ref> The study was used in articles by ''[[CBS News]]'',<ref>[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/solved-why-pot-smoking-causes-memory-loss/ ''Solved: Why pot smoking causes memory loss'']  Wynne Parry 26 October 2011</ref> ''[[Le Figaro]]'',<ref>[http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2011/10/31/15236-comment-cannabis-perturbe-lactivite-cerebrale Comment le cannabis perturbe l'activité cérébrale] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424025658/http://sante.lefigaro.fr/actualite/2011/10/31/15236-comment-cannabis-perturbe-lactivite-cerebrale |date=24 April 2016 }} Aude Rambaud, 31 October 2011</ref> and ''[[Bild]]''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bild.de/ratgeber/gesund-fit/marihuana/ein-joint-kann-schizophrenie-ausloesen-cannabis-20661246.bild.html|title=Psychose durch Cannabis: Schon ein Joint kann Schizophrenie auslösen!|work=BILD.de|date=26 October 2011|access-date=12 March 2012|archive-date=27 October 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111027081634/http://www.bild.de/ratgeber/gesund-fit/marihuana/ein-joint-kann-schizophrenie-ausloesen-cannabis-20661246.bild.html|url-status=live}}</ref> among others.

In October 2011, the ''Daily Mail'' printed an article citing the research, titled "Just ONE cannabis joint can bring on schizophrenia as well as damaging memory." The group [[Cannabis Law Reform]] (CLEAR), which campaigns for ending drug prohibition, criticised the ''Daily Mail'' report.<ref name="Clear-uk">{{cite web |url=http://clear-uk.org/the-daily-mail-addicted-to-lies-and-misinformation-about-cannabis/ |title=The Daily Mail – Addicted To Lies And Misinformation About Cannabis |work=Clear-uk |access-date=12 March 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120323115419/http://clear-uk.org/the-daily-mail-addicted-to-lies-and-misinformation-about-cannabis |archive-date=23 March 2012 }}</ref> Matt Jones, co-author of the study, said he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the article, and stated: "This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia".<ref name="Clear-uk"/> Dorothy Bishop, professor of [[neuroscience]] at [[University of Oxford|Oxford University]], in her blog awarded the ''Daily Mail'' the "Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation",<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/daily-mail-wins-worst-science-article-prize_n_1291243.html|title=Daily Mail Wins Worst Science Article Prize|newspaper=Huffington Post|date=22 February 2012|access-date=12 March 2012|first=Travis|last=Korte|archive-date=11 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120311095140/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/daily-mail-wins-worst-science-article-prize_n_1291243.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|author=Craig Silverman |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1126146--newsmangled-daily-mail-wins-orwellian-prize-for-cannabis-story|title=Newsmangled: Daily Mail wins Orwellian Prize for 'cannabis' story|newspaper=The Star|date=3 February 2012|access-date=12 March 2012|location=Toronto|archive-date=12 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312225429/http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1126146--newsmangled-daily-mail-wins-orwellian-prize-for-cannabis-story|url-status=live}}</ref> The ''Mail'' later changed the article's headline to: "Just ONE cannabis joint 'can cause psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-shrubb/cannabis-does-not-cause-s_b_946149.html |title=Richard Shrubb: Cannabis Does Not Cause Schizophrenia&nbsp;... It may Contribute Though! |newspaper=Huffingtonpost |date=2 September 2011 |access-date=12 March 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114031637/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-shrubb/cannabis-does-not-cause-s_b_946149.html |archive-date=14 January 2012 }}</ref>

===Ralph Miliband article===
In September 2013, the ''Mail'' was criticised for an article on [[Ralph Miliband]] (late father of then [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]]-leader [[Ed Miliband]] and prominent Marxist sociologist), titled "The Man Who Hated Britain".<ref name="Wright"/><ref name="BBC News-2013"/> Ed Miliband said that the article was "ludicrously untrue", that he was "appalled" and "not willing to see my father's good name be undermined in this way". Ralph Miliband had arrived in the UK from Belgium as a Jewish refugee from the Holocaust. The ''[[The Jewish Chronicle|Jewish Chronicle]]'' described the article as "a revival of the 'Jews can't be trusted because of their divided loyalties' genre of antisemitism."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Grant|first1=Linda|title=Mrs Cohen, the Daily Mail is talking about you, too|url=http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/111996/mrs-cohen-daily-mail-talking-about-you-too|work=[[The Jewish Chronicle]]|access-date=31 July 2015|archive-date=19 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150719181506/http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/111996/mrs-cohen-daily-mail-talking-about-you-too|url-status=live}}</ref> Conservative MP [[Zac Goldsmith]] linked the article to the Nazi sympathies of the 1st Viscount Rothermere, whose family remain the paper's owners.<ref name="BBC News-2013">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24343074 |access-date=26 February 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150920202145/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24343074 |archive-date=20 September 2015 |newspaper=BBC News |title= Ed Miliband accuses Daily Mail over 'lie' about father|date=October 2013 }}</ref><ref name="Wright">{{cite news|last1=Wright|first1=Oliver|title='A man who hated Britain': Ed Miliband accuses Daily Mail of 'appalling lie' about his father Ralph|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-man-who-hated-britain-ed-miliband-accuses-daily-mail-of-appalling-lie-about-his-father-ralph-8852106.html|work=The Independent|access-date=31 July 2015|archive-date=10 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610235635/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/a-man-who-hated-britain-ed-miliband-accuses-daily-mail-of-appalling-lie-about-his-father-ralph-8852106.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24361040 | work=BBC News | title=Labour demands Ralph Miliband apology from Mail | date=2 October 2013 | access-date=20 June 2018 | archive-date=19 October 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181019015126/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24361040 | url-status=live }}</ref>

The paper defended the article's general content in an editorial, but described its use of a picture of Ralph Miliband's grave as an "error of judgement".<ref>{{cite web|title=Mail admits Miliband father's grave photo was 'error' but says Labour leader's attack on paper is 'disingenuous'|url=http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-admits-miliband-fathers-grave-photo-was-error-says-labour-leaders-attack-paper-disingenuous|website=Press Gazette|date=2 October 2013 |access-date=31 July 2015|archive-date=24 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105901/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/mail-admits-miliband-fathers-grave-photo-was-error-says-labour-leaders-attack-paper-disingenuous|url-status=live}}</ref> In the editorial, the paper further remarked 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."<ref>{{cite web|title=An evil legacy and why we won't apologise (Editorial)|url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2439714/Ed-Miliband-evil-legacy-wont-apologise.html|website=Daily Mail|date=October 2013|access-date=3 December 2018|archive-date=6 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106171724/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2439714/Ed-Miliband-evil-legacy-wont-apologise.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A spokesman for the paper also described claims that the article continued its history of [[anti-Semitism]] as "absolutely spurious."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Rocker|first1=Simon|title=Daily Mail accused of antisemitic attack over Miliband story|url=http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/111993/daily-mail-accused-antisemitic-attack-over-miliband-story|newspaper=Jewish Chronicle|access-date=31 July 2015|archive-date=19 July 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150719174606/http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/111993/daily-mail-accused-antisemitic-attack-over-miliband-story|url-status=live}}</ref> However, the reference to "the jealous God of Deuteronomy" was criticised by [[Jonathan Freedland]], who said 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"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Freedland|first1=Jonathan|title=Was the Daily Mail piece antisemitic?|url=http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/111995/was-daily-mail-piece-antisemitic|access-date=31 July 2015|work=[[The Jewish Chronicle]]|date=3 October 2003|archive-date=30 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150930234326/http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/111995/was-daily-mail-piece-antisemitic|url-status=live}}</ref> and that "those ready to acquit the Mail because there was no bald, outright statement of antisemitism were probably using the wrong measure."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Freedland|first1=Jonathan|title=Antisemitism doesn't always come doing a Hitler salute|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/antisemitism-does-not-always-come-hitler-salute|access-date=31 July 2015|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=4 October 2013|archive-date=31 May 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150531223602/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/antisemitism-does-not-always-come-hitler-salute|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Gawker Media lawsuit===
In March 2015, James King, a former contract worker at the ''Mail's'' New York office, wrote an article for ''[[Gawker]]'' titled 'My Year Ripping Off the Web With the ''Daily Mail Online''{{'}}. In the article, King alleged that the ''Mail{{'}}s'' approach was to rewrite stories from other news outlets with minimal credit in order to gain advertising clicks, and that staffers had published material they knew to be false. He also suggested that the paper preferred to delete stories from its website rather than publish corrections or admit mistakes.<ref>{{cite web|last1=King |first1=James |title=My Year Ripping Off the Web With the Daily Mail Online |url=http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 |website=Gawker |access-date=4 September 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905103217/http://tktk.gawker.com/my-year-ripping-off-the-web-with-the-daily-mail-online-1689453286 |archive-date=5 September 2015 }}</ref>

In September 2015, the ''Mail's'' US company Mail Media filed a $1&nbsp;million lawsuit against King and Gawker Media for libel.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP|title=Mail Media vs. Gawker Media, King|url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2332990-daily-mail-vs-gawker-media.html|website=Document Cloud|publisher=Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP|access-date=4 September 2015|archive-date=19 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150919091536/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2332990-daily-mail-vs-gawker-media.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Eric Wemple at ''[[The Washington Post]]'' questioned the value of the lawsuit, stating that "Whatever the merits of King's story, it didn't exactly upend conventional wisdom" about the website's strategy.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Wemple|first1=Erik|title=Mail Online sues Gawker for defamation over first-person piece|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/03/mail-online-sues-gawker-for-defamation-over-first-person-piece/|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=4 September 2015|archive-date=6 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906070041/https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/09/03/mail-online-sues-gawker-for-defamation-over-first-person-piece/|url-status=live}}</ref> In November 2016, Lawyers for ''Gawker'' filed a motion to resolve the lawsuit. Under the terms of the motion, ''Gawker'' was not required to pay any financial compensation, but agreed to add an Editor's Note at the beginning of the King article, remove an illustration in the post which incorporated the Daily Mail's logo, and publish a statement by DailyMail.com in the same story.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawker-agrees-alter-story-dailymailcom-settlement-mail-online-951352|title=Gawker Agrees to Supplement Story About DailyMail.com in Settlement With Mail Online|work=The Hollywood Reporter|access-date=27 August 2018|language=en|archive-date=28 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180828035551/https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/gawker-agrees-alter-story-dailymailcom-settlement-mail-online-951352|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/media/gawker-media-daily-mail/index.html|title=Daily Mail's price for Gawker settlement: Words, not money|last=Kludt|first=Tom|work=CNNMoney|access-date=27 August 2018|archive-date=27 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827211616/https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/media/gawker-media-daily-mail/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Anti-refugee cartoon===
Following the [[November 2015 Paris attacks]],<ref name="Buchanan-2015">{{cite news|last1=Buchanan|first1=Rose Troup|title=Daily Mail criticised by social media users for cartoon on refugees|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/daily-mail-criticised-by-social-media-users-for-cartoon-on-refugees-a6737976.html|access-date=18 November 2015|work=The Independent|date=18 November 2015|archive-date=18 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118095922/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/daily-mail-criticised-by-social-media-users-for-cartoon-on-refugees-a6737976.html|url-status=live}}</ref> a cartoon in the ''Daily Mail'' by [[Stanley McMurtry]] ("Mac") linked the [[European migrant crisis]] (with a focus on [[Syria]] in particular<ref>{{cite news|last1=Mark|first1=Michelle|title=Amid Syrian Refugee Crisis, 'Racist' Daily Mail Cartoon Prompts Anger on Social Media|url=http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-syrian-refugee-crisis-racist-daily-mail-cartoon-prompts-anger-social-media-2188732|access-date=18 November 2015|work=International Business Times|date=17 November 2015|archive-date=18 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118153923/http://www.ibtimes.com/amid-syrian-refugee-crisis-racist-daily-mail-cartoon-prompts-anger-social-media-2188732|url-status=live}}</ref>) to the terrorist attacks, and criticised the [[European Union]] [[immigration laws]] for allowing [[Islamist]] radicals to gain easy access into the United Kingdom.<ref>{{cite news|author1=Mac for the Daily Mail|author-link1=Stanley McMurtry|title=MAC ON... Europe's open borders|url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321431/MAC-Europe-s-open-borders.html|access-date=18 November 2015|work=Daily Mail|date=17 November 2015|archive-date=18 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118005259/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321431/MAC-Europe-s-open-borders.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Despite being compared to [[Nazi propaganda]],<ref>{{cite news|last1=Mackey|first1=Robert|title=Anger Over Daily Mail Cartoon Equating Refugees to Rats|url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/anger-over-daily-mail-cartoon-equating-refugees-to-rats/|access-date=4 April 2016|work=The New York Times|date=17 November 2015|url-access=limited|archive-date=12 May 2017|archive-url=https://archive.today/20170512085129/https://www.nytimes.com/live/paris-attacks-live-updates/anger-over-daily-mail-cartoon-equating-refugees-to-rats/|url-status=live}}</ref> and criticised as racist, the cartoon received praise on the [[Mail Online]] website.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Panton|first1=Callum|title=UK public support for Syrian refugees collapses in wake of deadly Paris attacks|url=https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-public-support-syrian-refugees-124136735.html|access-date=18 November 2015|work=[[International Business Times]]|date=18 November 2015|archive-date=12 May 2017|archive-url=https://archive.today/20170512085217/https://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-public-support-syrian-refugees-124136735.html|url-status=live}}</ref> A ''Daily Mail'' spokesperson told ''[[The Independent]]'': "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".<ref name="Buchanan-2015" /> [[Kate Allen (Amnesty International)|Kate Allen]], director of [[Amnesty International UK]], criticised the ''Daily Mail''{{'}}s cartoon for being "reckless xenophobia".<ref>{{cite news|last1=McKernan|first1=Bathan|title=The Daily Mail has been accused of xenophobia after publishing a cartoon that depicts refugees as rats|url=http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-daily-mail-has-been-accused-of-xenophobia-after-publishing-a-cartoon-that-depicts-refugees-as-rats--bkJRYorPYe|access-date=18 November 2015|work=i100.co.uk ([[The Independent]])|date=17 November 2015|archive-date=19 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151119035121/http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-daily-mail-has-been-accused-of-xenophobia-after-publishing-a-cartoon-that-depicts-refugees-as-rats--bkJRYorPYe|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Anthony Weiner scandal===
In September 2016, the ''Mail Online'' published a lengthy interview and screenshots from a 15-year-old girl who claimed that the American politician [[Anthony Weiner]] had sent her sexually explicit images and messages. The revelation led to Weiner and his wife [[Huma Abedin]] – an aide of [[Hillary Clinton]] – separating.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Kimble|first1=Lindsay|last2=Sobieraj Westfall|first2=Sandra|date=22 July 2019|title=Anthony Weiner Moved His Things Out of Huma Abedin's Apartment: They Are 'Not Back Together,' Friend Says|work=[[People (magazine)|People]]|url=https://people.com/politics/anthony-weiner-moving-out-huma-abedin-apartment/|access-date=17 September 2021|archive-date=17 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210917045648/https://people.com/politics/anthony-weiner-moving-out-huma-abedin-apartment/|url-status=live}}</ref> Weiner pleaded guilty in May 2017 to sending obscene material to a minor, and in September he was jailed for 21 months.<ref>{{cite news|title=Anthony Weiner jailed for 21 months for sexting underage girl|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391640|access-date=25 September 2017|work=BBC News|date=25 September 2017|archive-date=25 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170925235903/http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391640|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Campaigns against plastic pollution===
The paper has campaigned against [[plastic pollution]] in various forms since 2008. The paper called for a levy on single use plastic bags.<ref name="Collins-2012">{{cite magazine|last1=Collins|first1=Lauren|title=Mail Supremacy|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/mail-supremacy|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|date=April 2012|access-date=12 January 2016|archive-date=17 May 2016|archive-url=https://archive.today/20160517084209/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/mail-supremacy|url-status=live}}</ref> The Daily Mail's work in highlighting the issue of plastic pollution was praised by the head of the [[United Nations Environment Program]], [[Erik Solheim]] at a conference in Kenya in 2017.<ref>{{cite news |last=Fernandez |first=Colin |url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5148405/UN-gets-Daily-Mails-campaign-plastic-waste.html |title=UN gets behind Daily Mail's campaign on plastic waste |work=Daily Mail |date=5 December 2017 |access-date=22 August 2018 |archive-date=21 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171221235742/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5148405/UN-gets-Daily-Mails-campaign-plastic-waste.html |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Emily Maitlis]], the newscaster, asked [[Green Party of England and Wales|Green Party]] leader [[Caroline Lucas]] on ''[[Newsnight]]'', 'Is the biggest friend to the Environment at the moment the ''Daily Mail''?' in reference to the paper's call for a ban on plastic microbeads and other plastic pollution, and suggested it had done more for the environment than the Green Party. Environment group [[ClientEarth]] has also highlighted the paper's role in drawing attention to the plastic pollution problem along with the [[Blue Planet II]] documentary.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/951224603484987392?lang=en |title=BBC Newsnight on Twitter: ""Is the biggest friend to the environment at the moment the Daily Mail?" |publisher=Twitter.com |date=10 January 2018 |access-date=22 August 2018 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308001225/https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/951224603484987392?lang=en |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.clientearth.org/plastics-nature-and-environmental-governance-top-agenda-for-eu-china-meeting/ |title=Plastics, nature and environmental governance top agenda for EU-China meeting |work=ClientEarth |date=25 June 2018 |access-date=22 August 2018 |archive-date=25 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725123651/https://www.clientearth.org/plastics-nature-and-environmental-governance-top-agenda-for-eu-china-meeting/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Gary McKinnon deportation===
Attempts by the United States government to extradite [[Gary McKinnon]], a British computer hacker, were campaigned against by the paper. In 2002, McKinnon was accused of perpetrating the "biggest military computer hack of all time"<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4715612.stm |title=Profile: Gary McKinnon |work=BBC News |date=30 July 2008 |first=Clark |last=Boyd |access-date=15 November 2008 |archive-date=9 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181009001817/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4715612.stm |url-status=live }}</ref> although McKinnon himself states that he was merely looking for evidence of free energy suppression and a cover-up of UFO activity and other technologies potentially useful to the public. The ''Daily Mail'' began to support McKinnon's campaign in 2009 – with a series of front-page stories protesting against his deportation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Tobitt |first=Charlotte |url=https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/some-of-paul-dacres-most-memorable-daily-mail-front-pages/ |title=Some of Paul Dacre's most memorable Daily Mail front pages – Press Gazette |publisher=Pressgazette.co.uk |date=7 June 2018 |access-date=22 August 2018 |archive-date=25 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725153302/https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/some-of-paul-dacres-most-memorable-daily-mail-front-pages/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

On 16 October 2012, after a series of legal proceedings in Britain, Home Secretary Theresa May withdrew her extradition order to the United States. Gary McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp praised the paper's contribution to saving her son from deportation in her book in which she said: '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.'<ref>{{cite news |last=Sharp |first=Janis |url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443371/Gary-McKinnons-mother-tells-10-year-battle-save-suicidal-Aspergers-son-US-jail.html |title=Gary McKinnon's mother tells of 10-year battle to save her suicidal Asperger's son from US jail |work=Daily Mail |access-date=22 August 2018 |archive-date=4 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190104212344/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2443371/Gary-McKinnons-mother-tells-10-year-battle-save-suicidal-Aspergers-son-US-jail.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Sharp |first=Janis |date= 2013 |title=Saving Gary McKinnon A Mother's Story |url=https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/saving-gary-mckinnon |location=London |publisher=Biteback |isbn=978-1849545747 |access-date=25 July 2018 |archive-date=25 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725153254/https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/saving-gary-mckinnon |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Abd Ali Hameed al-Waheed ===
In December 2017, the ''Daily Mail'' published a front-page story entitled "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 story related to a judge's decision to award money to Abd Ali Hameed al-Waheed after he had been unlawfully imprisoned. The headline was printed despite the fact that during the trial itself the judge concluded that claims that al-Waheed had been caught with a bomb were "pure fiction".

In July 2018, the [[Independent Press Standards Organisation]] ordered the paper to publish a front-page correction after finding the newspaper had breached rules on accuracy in its reporting of the case. The ''Daily Mail'' reported that a major internal investigation was conducted following the decision to publish the story, and as a result, "strongly worded disciplinary notes were sent to seven senior members of staff", which made it clear "that if errors of the same nature were to happen again, their careers would be at risk".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/27/daily-mail-publishes-front-page-apology-over-iraqi-bomb-claim|title=Daily Mail publishes front-page apology over Iraqi bomb claim|last=Waterson|first=Jim|date=27 July 2018|website=The Guardian|language=en|access-date=27 July 2018|archive-date=27 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180727184414/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/27/daily-mail-publishes-front-page-apology-over-iraqi-bomb-claim|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Doctored image of Korean soldiers in Ukraine ===
On December 4, 2024, the ''Daily Mail'' published an online story about the [[Russo-Ukrainian War]] under the headline “Kim Jong Un sends North Korean women to fight as cannon fodder for Putin in Ukraine”.<ref name="Bryen-2024">{{cite news |last1=Bryen |first1=Stephen |title=Fake story, fake photo of alleged North Korean women in Kursk |url=https://asiatimes.com/2024/12/fake-story-fake-photo-of-alleged-north-korean-women-in-kursk/ |access-date=December 5, 2024 |work=[[Asia Times]] |date=December 5, 2024}}</ref> The story was accompanied by a photo of what appeared to be two Korean women in combat fatigues.<ref name="Bryen-2024"/><ref name="Nash-2024"/> It was later revealed that the photo was an older image of two Russian soldiers whose facial features had been doctored to appear Korean.<ref name="Bryen-2024"/> According to ''[[Mediaite]]'', the ''Daily Mail'' "received backlash and ridicule on social media before it removed the article and issued a correction notice".<ref name="Nash-2024">{{cite news |last1=Nash |first1=Charlie |title=Daily Mail Apologizes After Publishing Photoshopped Image of 'North Korean Women' Fighting in Ukraine |url=https://www.mediaite.com/news/daily-mail-apologizes-after-publishing-photoshopped-image-of-north-korean-women-fighting-in-ukraine/ |access-date=December 5, 2024 |work=[[Mediaite]] |date=December 4, 2024}}</ref>