"Attention grabbing"? It's a tabloid paper. That's what tabloid papers are for. As for "wildly inaccurate", it simply has quite a strong bias, but so do lots of papers. The Guardian is no less partisan.
I wouldn't buy a copy of the Mail, but I'm tired of reading fatuous name-calling of this sort from people who've never read the paper.
The "faceless aliens" story is about real people walking around with masks on. The story itself points that out: Close inspection of the pictures rules out an alien invasion - small perforations around the eye areas of the masks allow the people beneath to see the world outside.
It then goes on to speculate that they're part of a viral marketing campaign or celebrities in disguise.
Lightweight and lowbrow, sure, but they aren't just making up tabloid lies.
The news in the Mail might be a bit hyped but it's not "wildly inaccurate". I don't read it either, and wouldn't, but it's not exactly The Daily Sport.
So, you wouldn't buy a copy and yet you claim others have never read it?
My parents buy it, so I've read it fairly often at their house, but, no, I wouldn't buy it myself. So yes, I have read it on many occasions, while most of those who bash it do so without having ever read a copy.
To put the guardian and the daily mail in the same column is doing serious injustice to the guardian.
I didn't put them in the same column: as I said, the Mail is a tabloid. All I said is that both are heavily biased, which is true. Each writes with its own audience in mind: Guardian readers won't like what's written in the Mail, and vice-versa. Accusations beyond this, such as yours of "wildly inaccurate journalism", are more exaggerated and sensational than any Mail headline.
