Ooooh.
This is going to be fun. TB mode on.
Your comparison with Peugeot and the Agera is entirely false. Speed can be objectively measured. A panel of judges saying otherwise would not change irrefutable facts.
We aren't talking about objective facts. We are talking about subjective opinions.
As I outlined, two possible ways to compare subjective quality are to ask experts, or to ask actual users.
The Daily Mail was ranked better this year by experts. It is our second best selling paper in a competitive market, so is clearly rated by those who buy it. QED.
Back to the car thing. It's perfectly possible that the Peugeot would be rated as a better car than the Agera. It's cheaper to buy, more fuel efficient, more roomy, cheaper to maintain, better equipped, easier to drive, etc. The things that go in to creating a subjective opinion will include a number of objective and subjective assessments.
It's perfectly possible that it would be rated better by experts than the Agera.
O.M.G. what do you know?
Peugeot 3008 wins European Car of the Year 2017
Surely the point isn’t whether the DM is better or worse than any other, it’s whether companies should be pushed into not advertising in the countries second best sellingpaper.
It’s about time companies started standing up to these people rather than pandering to bullies.
As usual certain members on here want to change the topic of a thread to their own agenda and to try and prove their superiority.
(For the record, I don’t read ANY newspapers)
Once again you are completely missing the point; my opinion is irrelevant when it comes to awarding "Newspaper of The Year", it is judged and awarded by their journalist peers.
So when I "stick" to repeating that the DM was "Newspaper of The Year 2016", it's because it's just an incontrovertible fact. If it helps you understand on a more basic level, Ukraine won Eurovision 2016. My opinion on whether they had a better song than France, UK or anywhere else is irrelevant, the fact remains that Ukraine won it, so I will "stick" to saying that they won it. Because they did.
You keepbanging on about the Guardian as though it was some gold standard of Journalism. That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. Not everyone shares it. In fact very few share it looking at their tiny circulation numbers and the fact that they have been reduced to begging online for contributions to keep going. With journalists such as Owen Jones and Polly Toynbee, it's hardly surprising that it's not popular to be frank, I can find better quality journalism on my toilet paper.
The winner of 'Toilet Paper of the Year' award in 2016.
How about the British Journalism Awards 2016?
The Guardian won 3 catergories - Business Finance and Economics, Digital Innovation and Investigation of the Year.
The Times won 2 categories - Politics and Science Technology.
The Daily Mail won 1 category - Sport.
Do those opinions count ?
What's the criteria ?
I was always led to believe that the news papers were divided into 4 main categories with a few sub catergories.
Broadsheets: The Times, Guardian, FT etc
Tabloids:
Daily Mail, Daily Express
Red top:
Sun, Mirror
Red top Comics:
The Sport
Free Papers: Metro etc
Local Papers: Express etc.
Of those categories, the Broadsheets have the highest reading ages - roughly 12 to 14.
They tend to ignore celebrity and gossip leaning more towards art, culture, science, economics etc.
The Tabloids have a lower reading age - around 7 to 9.
They tend to focus more on sport, celebrity, gossip and scare stories about what the latest thing that might cause cancer, the next danger to your children to worry about etc.
The Red top tabloids and comics have the lowest reading age - 6 to 7 and focus on sport, boobies and celebrities, preferably stories containing all three, and in the case of the Sport, with the addition of alien ghosts haunting the bra's of ex big brother girls who are dating footballers.
Are we still in 2016?
As to the rest so what?
A lower reading age makes a paper lower quality? So they are more accessible to children then? And that's bad because....?
You seem to be rather desperate to prove the guardian is better quality than the mail. It may be better in your subjective opinion.
Luckily the world doesn't revolve around your opinions.
It's more a desperation to retain some sense that the world hasn't ended and we aren't existing in a quasi upturned kafka-esk nightmare where authority has been replaced by fake news driven polemic opinions that seek to cause any attempt at reason to be thwarted and followed by ever more dilution of any shared context, understanding or sense of a basal reality.
For translation:
It appears to me that we are in danger of if not already moving away from any sense of a generally accepted and shared sense of standards and defined criteria for establishing the truth or veracity of a thing towards a more fluid, individualised or solipshical approach to evidence, expertise, knowledge and reliable sources of the aforementioned.
Don't trust the papers except the ones we agree with, don't trust the experts except those who say things we like. Don't trust an education, we are all clever enough to make up our own minds about anything and anyone that says otherwise is just elitist, prejudiced or privilaged.
Any attempts to try and break through the miasma of opinion and feelings over facts appears to simply end up with a lung full of toxic air while trying to grasp at mist.
I place those who rant on about the BBC/the Guardian bias in the same boat as Climate Change conspiracy theorists, Evolution deniers and those that believe things like women and men are physically equal at a biological level, but it's society in the form of 'the patriachy' that pushes women into not doing enough physical excercise to match the men.
Unfortunately, we are still in 2017 ... and they don't do the awards for this year till December ... 
So a world where not everyone agrees with your subjective opinions is a kafka-esque nightmare?
Ok then.
No dear - a world where everything is fake news, the once reliable and trusted news sources are suddenly just as bad or good as any other, expertise and education is devalued.