Seems Like The Daily Mail Must Be Doing Something Right?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2290108/MailOnline-caps-record-breaking-year-award-Oscars-British-journalism.html

And another 'right-wing' paper won newspaper of the year.

/// The Times was named newspaper of the year. ///

[emmie]

confess unless it's linked here on AB, in never look at the paper on line...

[Answerprancer]

Dah! The Times only won it because Great Uncle Bulgaria is a freemason.

[anotheoldgit]

em10

You should there is so much to see.

[emmie]

more than actually buying the paper...

[sp1814]

DailyMail...home of churnalism.

[emmie]

sp, better than reading the gruaniad...

[Answerprancer]

"You should there is so much to see" that's what Oswald Moseley said!

[Gromit]

No denying that the Mail's website is very good. I've said so before.

The Big winner though, was the Times...

// The premier awards for British journalism were handed out at a glittering ceremony at the Lancaster London Hotel last night.

The Times dominated the main accolades of the evening winning the coveted Newspaper of the Year Award while the paper’s investigative reporting into tax avoidance by big name stars was recognised in its Scoop of the Year, News Team of the Year and News Reporter of the Year honours.

Alexi Mostrous and Fay Schlesinger’s delve into complex schemes used by celebrities to shield their earnings from the taxman was described by the judges as “a cracking expose that had massive ramifications. Not only did it shock and anger the public it set the public agenda.”

The investigation also won Mostrous the News Reporter of the Year award.

The judges said that in a year of Jubilee coverage, The Times was at the top of its game with both print and online news, current affairs and features.

They added: “Offering impressive quality combined with superb scoops, columnists that are among the most well-known in the industry and increasingly innovative digital offerings, it is well on its way to silencing its pay wall critics.”

Its sister paper, The Sunday Times, took home the most awards of the evening winning five prizes in a year in which their chief sports reporter David Walsh’s 14-year investigation into Lance Armstrong and doping was finally vindicated.

The judges described 2012 for Walsh as: “the culmination of a great sports story. Not only did he stick to his guns, he left everyone else in his wake.”

Walsh took home the Sports Journalist of the Year award and was also recognised in their Sports Team of the Year accolade.

The Foreign Reporter of the Year award was delivered posthumously to Marie Colvin who was killed while reporting from Syria for The Sunday Times.

Her powerful report on the scale of suffering in Baba Amr in Syria was tragically her last piece but one the judges described as being “richly deserved of recognition in its own right.

“She was the foreign reporter who set the standard for others to follow. Her last dispatch, a brilliant piece of reportage, shows why she was so revered.”

The award was accepted by John Witherow, acting editor of The Times, who edited its sister paper for 18 years amid a standing ovation for the late reporter. //

[anotheoldgit]

It continuously amazes me that some who regularly criticise and insult the Mail and it's journalists, are soon to take advantage of it's web site if some story happens to support their own particular agenda.

[Noth43]

Sometimes adore, sometimes abhor the Daily Mail.
Sometimes they're spot on, sometimes they patently make it up on the spot.

[ichkeria]

Well done the Times indeed, and the Daily Mail website, although I can't say I ever go there unless AOG sends me :-)

The Times also has a campaign going for safer cycling, to its credit.
And of course the crossword reigns supreme :-)

I think in the coming year it may merge with the Sunday Times ...

[anotheoldgit]

Anyone know how the Guardian, the Daily Mirror, the Observer, and the Morning Star fared?

[sp1814]

AOG

I myself have had to stop using the Mail, because of the amount of spin on so many of their stories.

Fortunately, I'm not missing out, because the likelihood of the Mail printing something that concurred with my outlook is extremely slim.

[sp1814]

AOG

Do you know what 'churnalism' is?

[emmie]

a word you made up..

[sp1814]

AOG

Here's the full list of winners and runners up (so you can see how the list of titles you asked about did):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/21/press-awards-2012-winners

A quick scan down shows up only one win for the Mirror, and none for the other publications you mention. Loads for the Mail and the Telegraph.

That must mean that they are doing something very right.

But then again - Argo won Best Film at the 2013 Oscars over Life Of Pi...so go figure...

[sp1814]

em10

No...it's what papers do to fill their online editions.

The Daily Mail certainly isn't alone in this, but by gum, it's certainly at the head of the pack:

Notice how many times The Daily Mail uses PR as 'news':

http://bad-pr.tumblr.com/

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/dacre-says-mail-doesnt-do-churnalism-oh.html

[emmie]

i don't read the online paper...

[rojash]

The biggest selling printed Newspaper is still the Sun.
It doesn't automatically follow that it's good, honest, relevant or high quality.

The Mail has an extremely popular website.
It doesn't automatically follow that it's good, honest, relevant or high quality.

[sp1814]

em10

With regard to the Guardian vs The Daily Mail...

I would disagree, but that's because what I want from a newspaper, the Daily Mail simply cannot deliver.

I like reading about technology and the Daily Mail's tech page is laughable. I work in IT, and there's nothing for me on the Mail's 'Science' page. However, the Guardian, Telegraph and Independent have thoroughly entertaining and well written tech microsites.

Also, I prefer those newspapers for interviews.

Finally, I find the Mail's obsession with celebrity children and which famous woman is fat/thin/looking old/badly dress, quite dispiriting.

(The Mail absolutely HATES women).