This was posted 10 years 2 months 9 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

New York Times - 60% off Regular Subscription Rates for One Year

60
New York Times - 60% off Regular Subscription Rates for One Year
Go to Deal
JeffreyM on 27/08/2014 - 20:40 nytimes.com (205 clicks)
Last edited 27/08/2014 - 23:25

Being a registered user of the New York Times, I regularly get various offers trying to entice me to purchase a subscription to the website/apps. Most of them are pretty average (eg; 99 cents for 4/12 weeks, $2 for 50 articles per month) however this one is actually surprisingly really good. Basically the NY Times are offering 60% off their normal digital subscription rates for one year before the normal subscription rates apply (which you can always cancel before then).

With the discount applied, the packages end up being like this:
- NY Times website + smartphone apps: $6 every four weeks (Normal Rate: $15)
- NY Times website + tablet apps: $8 every four weeks (Normal Rate: $20)
- All Digital Access (website + smartphone & tablet apps): $14 every four weeks (Normal Rate: $35)

Personally, I think the website + tablet app package is good value since if you need access on a smartphone - you have the NY Times mobile site & 'NYT Now' (top stories) app available. Which means it saves you having to overpay for the 'All Digital Access' package just to get access to the smartphone app.

Yes there's ways to get around paywalls on websites and that not everyone likes/supports the idea of having to pay for news, but this probably going a rare opportunity to get a subscription for a high-quality brand like the New York Times at a substantial discount.

PS: Ignore the 'International New York Times' branding on the page. It's simply the branding for the international version of the website which used to be called the International Herald Tribune.

Internet International New York Newspaper North America NY Times NYT United States

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times

closed Comments

  • Jackson on 27/08/2014 - 21:10

    Not a regular NYT reader but their coverage of the Israel Palestine conflict is very one sided and this is well documented. Interestingly more one sided than the WSJ which I believe is a Murdoch paper these days. I believe this is because their correspondent is not impartial at all.

    • parcus on 27/08/2014 - 22:10
      +2

      But if they were exclusively pro-Palestine, you'd call that 'fair and balanced', no? Besides, I'm a regular reader and I'd hardly say their news articles have been one-sided this time around. The op-eds on the other hand can be quite… interesting to say the least.

      • MrZ on 27/08/2014 - 22:14

        Well, considering the large Jewish population in New York, getting any kind of publication based in NYC to be "fair" with regards to the conflict is just wishful thinking. No Jewish journalist is going to give each side a fair chance, just like any kind of publication based in the middle east is not going to be fair to the Israeli side.

        • Jackson on 27/08/2014 - 22:29
          +1

          Actually Al Jazeera is considered quite balanced by just about everyone outside Israel and parts of the US maybe and this is shown partly by the calibre of correspondent they have been able to hire. However there are always going to be people opposed to certain news stories so just about everything has a counterpoint somewhere.

          Having said that while its not a newspaper The New Yorker is much more respectful of the evidence IMO.

        • Snowmonkey on 27/08/2014 - 23:56
          +2

          John Stewart (The Daily Show)is Jewish and he manages to be balanced and fair.

        • Jackson on 28/08/2014 - 00:01

          and not to mention funny

      • Jackson on 27/08/2014 - 22:38
        +1

        I would never use the term 'fair and balanced' at least not since its been hijacked by Fox news, which is nothing of the sort :-)

        The articles don't tend to be as in your face about the onesidedness, in that they use a relatively logical progression of thought to get to a summation, but they tend to start from a position that is incorrect or at least one sided, eg. Comparisons showing how many rockets are fired, when really this comparison is not fair as some rockets are little more than unguided bottle rockets without a warhead, while others are infinitely more powerful, targeted and effective.

  • tomssy on 27/08/2014 - 22:00

    I do enjoy their articles which are usually longer and more in-depth compared to CNN or BBC.

  • MrZ on 27/08/2014 - 22:12

    Any good deals on the Bangladesh Observer? Would love to read their views on Tony Abbott.

    • Jackson on 27/08/2014 - 22:39

      only Bangladesh?

      • MrZ on 27/08/2014 - 22:42

        No, I always love reading papers from anywhere that's half way around the world and has no local stories.

        • hayne on 03/09/2014 - 00:33

          You say that pejoratively - but if you're someone who actually takes an interest in the world around us, you'll find that none of the local papers can hold a candle to the NY Times when it comes to international coverage.

          I would (and do) pay for a subscription to the NYT. Unfortunately, there's not a single domestic paper that I would pay to read. Not because I'm unwilling, but because the quality of the journalism is poor to average at best. It's a sad state of affairs.

  • cashless on 27/08/2014 - 23:41
    +1

    Quality paper and if you travel around Asia a fair bit, perhaps the best read going - the International version, that is.
    The NYT puts most domestic papers in the trash can where they belong, although it's not much cop if you're the type that only wants to read domestic news.

    • hayne on 03/09/2014 - 00:35

      Couldn't agree more

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join