More often than not they neither resemble the story that follows or, more importantly, the truth.
And out of the last seven days, six of the headlines have been outright lies.
On the 4 March, they ran Cheryl and Ashley back together: Secret reunion for the Coles, with a pap picture of them in the back of a car, holding hands and smiling.
But it's deliberately, cyncially deceptive.
The picture was taken in 2008 and the story says they only might get back together.
If you believe the Star's story. Which is based entirely on an anonymous source.
So there's no particular reason why anyone should.
The next day, Friday 5 March, the Star led with (ahem) 'shock new evidence' in the Madeleine McCann case.
The headline was 'Maddie is seen alive on telly'.
That is a shock. Was she? Err:
Viewers wept when footage of a girl who looks just like Madeleine McCann singing in a school choir flashed up during a TV news bulletin.
'Looks like'? So not actually her 'alive on telly' then?
It may be that the next day's story had a grain of truth in it. It does appear that Jordan told GMTV that she is in talks to do a film.
It seems highly unlikely. And whether it actually happens is another thing entirely.
Nonetheless, the Star couldn't resist over-doing it.
Why is it an 'Oscar sensation'?
And even if it did happen, there's not a chance in hell it would be a 'Hollywood blockbuster'.
The Daily Star Sunday went back to the obvious lying with 'Cheryl Strip Show Secret Revealed'.
The story, which unbelievably has two journalists named in the byline, continues the pretence:
Cheryl Cole was left red-faced last night when a male pal blabbed about how she pranced around half-naked during a backstage heart-to-heart.
But then it falls apart - in the third paragraph:
Her day started badly when Danish X Factor judge Soulshock revealed she gave him an eyeful while changing into a revealing bathrobe after her first live performance since splitting with love rat hubby Ashley.
'Strip show'? 'Prancing around naked'? Or woman gets changed in her dressing room?
(The strapline at the bottom of the page 'Cowell's marriage is a joke' is also odd, given he isn't married.)
On Monday, the Star was back to its favourite subject: Jordan.
Jordan fury as Pete romps in front of kids gives the impression that Pete(r Andre) romped in front of the kids.
And romped, in tabloid land, usually means sex.
Once again, the story begins as if that is true:
Jordan is fuming after her ex-husband Peter Andre gyrated with lycra-clad dancers in front of their kids. The dirty dancing dad put on an X-rated show with kids Junior and Princess just feet away.
In fact, Andre had been performing at the IndigO2 Arena, and had danced with of some of his female dancers. Not really a 'romp'.
As for Jordan's 'fury', that all comes from yet another anonymous source.
Tuesday's headline was Jordan and Posh in Oscar party fight.
The Star has pretended two people have had a 'fight' before, when they haven't - see Vinnie Jones and Sisqo, Alex Reid and Peter Andre.
The story begins:
Victoria Beckham got rival Katie Price banned from the exclusive Vanity Fair bash by refusing to go if the glamour girl turned up, Hollywood insiders claimed.
So firstly, more anonymous sources. Secondly, even if that were true, it would be hard for them to have a 'fight' when they weren't in the same place.
The story goes on:
Posh encouraged revellers to get boozy with her. By contrast, party girl Jordan stayed sober.
Which is odd, because in another story about Jordan's Oscar night party antics, the Star said:
Jordan...chose to go out drinking with her husband Alex Reid’s Celebrity Big Brother pal Vinnie Jones, 45.
Onlookers at the Chateau Marmont Hotel, where the pair were partying, described Jordan as a “wreckhead” and “rude as hell”. One said: “She was all over the place and it wasn’t a pretty sight.”
Right. So the Star have her both 'sober' and 'all over the place'.
Those anonymous sources just can't be trusted, can they?
Today's front page ignores the Coles and Jordan (shock!) and leads with Jon Venables.
But a more serious topic doesn't mean it's any more accurate.
The article says:
A man has spoken of his terror after he was falsely accused of being James Bulger’s killer Jon Venables.
Innocent dad David Calvert has been the victim of a sick web scam.
Facebook postings, emails, text messages and Tweets all pointed the finger at David being Venables, living in the community under a new identity.
In other words, the headline should be: ''Venables' not outed on Facebook'. Because he hasn't been. As the story explains.
Is it because no one takes the Star seriously that this deliberate, daily deception is allowed to carry on day after day? Is it because the publicity-hungry subjects know there's no such thing as bad publicity?
Or is it that the PCC is just unable and unwilling to hold the press to account? Clause One of the Editor's Code says:
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
How is the Star not breaching that on a daily basis?