I’m just commenting on the science stories. It has many stories that are sensationalist nonsense. But it mixes them up with some that are somewhat journalistic in tone, but reasonably straight reporting. If you know enough about science, some of those articles are actually quite useful write ups of recent discoveries. So you can’t go as far as to say that if it is in the Daily Mail it’s inaccurate. Some of their science articles are pretty good, as good as articles in any of the mainstream papers. They must have at least one decent science journalist on the team who is able to read the material and understand it and write it up. But there is a fair chance of a science article there being inaccurate or sensationalized or even almost completely made up from nothing or the slenderest of stories. So you can’t rely on their science. For example, they regularly do very inaccurate asteroid impact stories. It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf, the inaccurate stories make it hard for most readers to pick out what is true and what is not.