This was posted 9 years 11 months 24 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Free Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 8" with 12 Month Digital Subscription to The Australian for $299

160
Free Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 8" with 12 Month Digital Subscription to The Australian for $299
Go to Deal
povertytrap on 01/12/2014 - 13:14 theaustralian.com.au (823 clicks)

This Samsung Tablet has RRP of $299 but a search on ozbargain reveals that it is probably worth $200. Still a good deal if you were wanting a digital subscription for The Australian anyway. The tablet is 8" 16GB Wifi in White. The price for the digital sub is as normal so the tablet is truly free. Have just ordered and have been advised that it will be delivered within 2-3 business days from JB Hifi. I know the Murdoch press is not everybody's cup of tea so hope that this post doesn't get negged for this reason. Payment is one up front payment of $299, can use Paypal.

Other Samsung Tablet Android

Related Stores

The Australian
The Australian

closed Comments

  • [Deactivated] on 01/12/2014 - 13:17
    +26

    Probably better to pay less for the tablet and not read Rupert Murdoch.

  • PLA74 on 01/12/2014 - 13:17

    Damn, wish the deal was for physical printed newspaper copies as well! Nice find OP!

    • retiredfeline on 01/12/2014 - 13:39

      Are you trying to accelerate their decline by using the fact that they are losing money for every printed copy? :)

      • onlyletters on 01/12/2014 - 13:41
        +7

        the decline of Murdoch is a good thing..

  • spychiatrist on 01/12/2014 - 13:42

    Claim on tax time, get 40% back. You still be out of pocket by $180 for the tablet. Nah, the HP Stream 7 is better value

  • Kanasuke on 01/12/2014 - 13:59
    +7

    hey Rupert I have a way to make this deal perfect. Drop $100, remove the subscription to that shitty newspaper and just sell the tablet.

  • lucky.ozbargain on 01/12/2014 - 14:25
    +5

    No Deal

    Toilet paper $15 -> https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/163338

    Galaxy tab 4 $217 -> https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/171113

    The quality of the toilet paper will be far superior to the murdoch branded stuff.

    • dan0909 on 01/12/2014 - 15:49

      very true.

  • COR80 on 01/12/2014 - 15:08
    -7

    Murdoch features columnists from both sides of the political spectrum, while Fairfax (apart from Paul Sheehan) and the ABC promote the left-wing agenda only.

    If I read The Australian, I will get to read about both sides of an issue. If I pick up an SMH or log onto The Conversation, it's like they are scared to present anything but conventional, accepted left-leaning dogma.

    Murdoch features many left-leaning columnists, he's not afraid to present different sides of the issue; nor is he afraid of trusting adult readers to make up their own minds after presenting different sides.

    Pity Fairfax and the ABC are too scared to present anything apart from leftist group-think.

    Anyway, Murdoch and Fairfax are entitled to do whatever the hell they want with their money. The ABC, on the other hand, promotes its exclusively left-wing agenda with taxpayer's money.

    But hey, y'all keep your blinkers on, and keep pretending Murdoch is some sort of boogeyman.

    • dan0909 on 01/12/2014 - 15:58
      -2

      "Murdoch features columnists from both sides of the political spectrum" BAHAHAHA YOU VOTED FOR TONNY ABBOTT.DIDN'T YA?

      • COR80 on 01/12/2014 - 17:11
        -3

        "Murdoch features columnists from both sides of the political spectrum" BAHAHAHA YOU VOTED FOR TONNY ABBOTT.DIDN'T YA?

        Wow what a childish response. Hardly unexpected, but still…..

        Yes, like most Australians, I indeed voted for "Tonny" Abbott.

        Also, Murdoch does feature columnists from both sides of the political spectrum. Were you going to attempt to refute that, or what?

        Phillip Adams, Troy Bramston, Tory Shepherd, Susie O’Brien, Laurie Oakes, David Penberthy, Anthony Sharwood, Jack the Insider, Malcolm Farr, Terry Sweetman, Paul Syvret, Dennis Atkins, Graham Richardson, Claire Harvey, Peter Brent, Errol Simper, Tristan Edis; all are left-leaning, politically, and all are paid by Murdoch to write for his papers.

        So what was your point?

        Like I said, Murdoch presents opposing viewpoints and then lets the adults make up their own minds, while Fairfax and the ABC consistently choose to represent only one side of the political spectrum.

        Amusingly enough, you care little that Fairfax and the ABC don't trust you enough to hear both sides, and to then make up your own mind.

        • Diogenes on 01/12/2014 - 19:02
          +2

          Yes, like most Australians, I indeed voted for "Tonny" Abbott

          And with that one sentence, we get definitive evidence the the preferential system is not understood by the electorate.

          The Combined Liberal/National primary vote: 40.3%.

          Liberal party primary vote (people voting explicitly for an Abbott government: 32.0%.

          And that's 32.0% of the turnout, which in turn is less than 100% of enrolled voters (~8% of enrolled adults refuse to vote), which in turn is less than 100% of eligible voters (again, ~8% of people entitled to enrol, refuse to do so… not everyone is a sheep). [Source: ABS, AEC]

          In other words, not even 1 in 3 adults voted for the Abbott government. (It's worse in the US: in elections since WWI, more people abstained than voted for any President… except for Lyndon Johnson when he got just over 1/3rd of the eligible vote). "Majority rule" is a lie.

          I never vote: the lesser of two evils is still evil and all politicians are parasitic vermin… likewise, I would refuse to choose to infect others with either Ebola or Hanta virus.

          No surprise that you're a newspaper reader: like churches and State schools, newspapers are ignorance-factories.

          If you like, I could go on… like how Arrow's Impossibility Theorem shows that for >2 voters and >2 choices, aggregation of ordinal preference expression does not result in a social welfare function that satisfies preference transitivity (a critical characteristic). That is to say, there is no reliable way to figure out "what society wants" - and anybody who says that democracy reflects the social will is ignorant or lying.

        • dan0909 on 01/12/2014 - 19:40

          Sure, Murdoch features columnists from both sides of the political spectrum and the sun comes up at 10PM.

        • COR80 on 01/12/2014 - 19:52
          -1

          @dan0909:

          I just gave you a list of some of the left-leaning columnists employed by Murdoch, and yet again- nstead of refuting anything I have presented- you respond in a juvenile manner.

          I get the impression you like to think of yourself as intelligent, yet, when given the opportunity to demonstrate this (by refuting anything I stated) you fail completely.

        • dan0909 on 01/12/2014 - 20:16
          -3

          @COR80: why only 4 lines this time? just go crazy explaining how sun does come up at 10PM.

        • COR80 on 01/12/2014 - 21:48
          -1

          @dan0909:

          You're making yourself look sillier and sillier, and I'm happy to leave you to it.

        • COR80 on 01/12/2014 - 22:06
          -4

          @Diogenes:

          Yes, like most Australians, I indeed voted for "Tonny" Abbott
          And with that one sentence, we get definitive evidence the the preferential system is not understood by the electorate.

          Really? You honestly think that only you understand the preferential voting system?
          A vote for the Nationals, the Liberals or certain independents was always a vote for Tony Abbott, as a vote for the Greens, Labor and other independents was always a vote for Kevin Rudd. To pretend otherwise is pointless.

          I never vote: the lesser of two evils is still evil and all politicians are parasitic vermin… likewise, I would refuse to choose to infect others with either Ebola or Hanta virus.

          You're entitled to your tin-foil theories.

          No surprise that you're a newspaper reader: like churches and State schools, newspapers are ignorance-factories.

          I read broadly. True ignorance is the sneering stupidity that suggests only you know what is fit to be read

          If you like, I could go on… like how Arrow's Impossibility Theorem shows that for >2 voters and >2 choices, aggregation of ordinal preference expression does not result in a social welfare function that satisfies preference transitivity (a critical characteristic). That is to say, there is no reliable way to figure out "what society wants" - and anybody who says that democracy reflects the social will is ignorant or lying.

          Yeah…..interesting.

          Your odd little comment, however, like dan0909's above, carefully avoided addressing the point I had raised in my initial comment; that Murdoch's papers provide a far more balanced political perspective than Fairfax and the ABC.

          As I also stated, Murdoch provides viewpoints from both the right and left, leaving readers to decide for themselves, whilst the ABC and Fairfax do not trust their readers to do the same.

          Rather than another rambling missive, perhaps you can address the points I raised, instead of avoiding them in favour of a strawman.

    • Boshait on 05/12/2014 - 17:17

      True. I find The Aus the best of the broadsheets.

      "The Conversation"

      Now you're joking.

  • dan0909 on 01/12/2014 - 22:18
    -1

    @COR80: This is what happens to people who read 'The Australian/Murdoch Shit'. They think they are intellegent (like Tonny Abbott does). They memorise 17 writers names from The Australian to prove their intelligence. They keep arguing about how correct they are. Ask yourself this, Would an intelligent person keep arguing even after he/she gets five negetive votes on his/her original comment? or do we have another Tonny Abbott here. I am out.

    • COR80 on 02/12/2014 - 04:25
      -2

      I'm not surprised. You had four, four opportunities to refute what I stated in my original comment, yet all you could muster was some random nonsense and juvenile name-calling. I mean "This is what happens to people who read 'The Australian/Murdoch Shit'", really? You are as basic as a garden variety student activist.

      Interesting that you fret about down votes on my behalf, even though I clearly am not concerned by so superficial a measure; I suspect it says more about your own fears and need for validation.

      Ironic then, that out of the many comments disagreeing with my stance, your comments alone have attracted these oh-so-important down votes.

      You made a bit of a goose of yourself, didn't you.

      • lucky.ozbargain on 02/12/2014 - 16:27
        +1

        @COR80: I must admit I do admire your ability to hold an adult conversation. I also think that you have stated and stuck to your point (that Murdoch publications present articles by writers from both sides of politics) remarkably well.

        I find it a little surprising that you have risen to what was on my part a somewhat throw away joke, regardless I think your comments about Murdoch providing what amounts to a balanced reporting of 'news' as laughable at best.

        I also note that just because your grammar, punctuation, and the structure of your arguments are slightly more lucid than some of your fellow commenters that you have still resorted to what amounts to fairly childish name calling… I haven't heard anyone called a "garden variety student activist" or "a bit of goose" for a while.

        Setting aside that a very close relative was a senior editor at 'The Australian' and I have seen and experienced first hand how articles are selected and written and at times even then pulled, as anecdotal… as lets face anyone can make up a story lets go with a visual aid from the last election…
        http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/murdoch-press-steps-…

        And just in case thats not clear enough or you think visual aids are dumbing it down how about this little fact, during the last election The ABC's Media Watch programme said an analysis of the Daily Telegraph's reporting in the first week of the election campaign showed half of its 80 stories were slanted against the government, with none against the conservative opposition. Over the next two weeks, it said, 59 stories were against the government, while only four were slanted against the opposition.
        Just three stories have been slanted in favour of the government.

        Given that your comments do indeed seem to be well written and thought out I would assume that you are more intelligent than to believe that merely having a clearly labeled leftist columnist on the payroll amounts to more than giving the readership something to foam about.

        By all means drag out all the names of leftist columnists who may have written for a Murdoch publication at some time, but I challenge you to show me a Murdoch publication that has ever come out in favour of a leftist government at any time.

        As far as the ABC and Fairfax publications go they are not offering a subscription with a Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 that I know of so I wouldn't like to high- jack the OP.

        • COR80 on 03/12/2014 - 18:55
          -1

          Firstly, seeing as how you "find it a little surprising that you have risen to what was on my part a somewhat throw away joke", I hope I do not damage your ego by pointing out that I clearly did not reply to your specific comment.

          "By all means drag out all the names of leftist columnists who may have written for a Murdoch publication at some time, but I challenge you to show me a Murdoch publication that has ever come out in favour of a leftist government at any time".

          If you really have a relative who was "a senior editor at 'The Australian'", you should have known that Murdoch's The Australian supported Rudd's election in 2007.

          As did Murdoch's Sydney Daily Telegraph, Murdoch's Brisbane Courier-Mail, Murdoch's Brisbane Sunday Mail, Murdoch's Sydney Sunday Telegraph and Murdoch's Hobart Mercury.

          What's "laughable" is how little you know of what you're arguing about.

          All of these Murdoch papers were not bound by the same ideological mindset that has been on display in this thread.

          Hardly seems like each managing editor was waiting by the phone to do their evil emperor's bidding now, does it.

          They were all prepared to support Rudd and Labor, and did….until the Rudd/Gillard/Labor government revealed itself as complete farce.

          And really, with the amount of bat-shit crazy stuff that happened in the Rudd/Gillard era, why is it surprising that they were the focus of Murdoch's media in the leadup to subsequent elections? Murdoch's media helped the Rudd/Gillard government get in. When they were revealed as inept and incompetent, Murdoch's media made sure at least some of the public were aware of it.

          But I digress; with all your words, you (like u/dan0909 and u/diogenes before) not-so-neatly sidestepped the issue I raised, an issue that could have been settled immediately, were it possible:

          Murdoch provides a voice for both sides of the political spectrum, and I helpfully listed you many of the left-leaning columnists and opinion writers in his employ.
          Apart from Paul Sheehan once a week in the SMH, where is Fairfax and the ABC's balance?
          Where do Fairfax and the ABC consistently provide balance to their overwhelmingly left-oriented reporting and opinion?

          Like I said, Murdoch is vastly more balanced than Fairfax and the ABC. He is not too scared to provide both sides of the story, in order to allow the adults to make up their own minds.

          Pity Fairfax and the ABC do not view their readers and viewers as sufficiently adult to do likewise.

        • COR80 on 04/12/2014 - 20:32
          -1

          Well? Not so smug now ay ;)

        • [Deactivated] on 04/12/2014 - 23:00
          +1

          @COR80: Urrrmmm, if you check his account he doesn't seem to have been online. I'm not sure he's the smug one.

        • COR80 on 05/12/2014 - 00:55
          -1

          @Where's_That_Cake: LoL. But someone else has been keeping a good eye out for her/him!

          Let me guess, Wheres_That_Cake; wherever Murdoch's mentioned….you'll…. be there.
          But without contributing much.
          Well, apart from the trite, throwaway, whiny, but-Murdoch-is-soooooo-bad guff.

          Feel free to argue on your friend's behalf, knowing that it's not so much a circle-jerk/echo-chamber now.

          Go on, surprise me. Prove me wrong.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/12/2014 - 06:20
          +1

          @COR80: I'm sorry, I don't get involved in arguing with random oddities. I simply pointed out a fact. Neither do I know the other guy or have ever had any contact with them.

        • lucky.ozbargain on 05/12/2014 - 12:56

          @COR80:

          I see that you quickly descended into more insults, and then typically into paranoia that others were ganging up on you, in some sort of carefully orchestrated conspiracy. A shame really.

          In 2007 as I recall, a limited number of Murdoch publications printed 11th hour support for the Labor campaign when it became clear they were going to win. This is not what I'd call support, but simple self interest and fear of what legislation would impact them if they were on the losing side. So this example is an interesting footnote, but meaningless.

          I'm not sure if your argument broke down or you simply weren't paying attention, but I did address your point. That 'The Australian' by simple virtue of having leftist columnists does not make it a balanced publication. A publication viewed as a whole has an overall tone, individual articles only exist to act as a counterpoint that reinforces the overall slant. It is editorial staff guided by the ownership that determine a publications political slant, a point which I backed up with facts.

          As far as the issues surrounding the leadership battle between Gillard and Rudd this is an entirely separate conversation. I believe we were discussing media bias. Again perhaps your argument broke down a little.

          Speaking of neatly sidestepping I noticed that you didn't counter either of the neatly referenced articles i provided for you. Perhaps that is because you don't care to provide references to prove that the australian is balanced or that fairfax and the ABC are not.

          However feel free to peruse the attached article which provides actual real facts as to bias in the reporting in the ABC. http://www.theguardian.com/media/datablog/2014/feb/06/austra…

          At which point I must apologise to the OP who was only specifically referring to the Australian, I trust he is not offended, and offer a humble apology.

        • COR80 on 05/12/2014 - 17:15

          @lucky.ozbargain:
          You're too funny.

          "If they paid you to watch this it still wouldn't be a deal, it's not news and it's cr@ppy as entertainment. No deal.

          Murdoch and his disgraceful right wing agenda can go f#ck itself." (u/lucky.ozbargain)

          Perhaps that is the gold-standard of what I should be aspiring to?

          "By all means drag out all the names of leftist columnists who may have written for a Murdoch publication at some time, but I challenge you to show me a Murdoch publication that has ever come out in favour of a leftist government at any time".

          Yep, certainly did that (see above, provided links from Fairfax and Crikey and all) and your response was the literary equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "nyaah nyahhh nyahhh I can't hear you any more!". You weren't able to counter this, so you followed on with some vague story about what you "recall", instead of gracefully admitting how wrong you were, and how little you know of what you argue.

          But it's hardly surprising is it? You were naive enough to send me a link of "actual real facts" (!) where a heavily left-leaning newspaper (The Guardian) says another heavily left-leaning organisation (The ABC) is not biased at all. Wow. Got me good there……

          Also not-so-neatly sidestepped was the fact those links I provided were evidence that different Murdoch managing editors supported different sides of politics, the left and the right, instead of (presumably) doing their nefarious emperor's bidding.

          And yet again, yet again, while I have helpfully provided a list of leftist writers employed by Murdoch, you have not been able to show me where Fairfax (apart from Paul Sheehan once a week or so) and Our ABC provide similar balance to their left-leaning media coverage.

          So, for all your (ostensibly) righteous indignation about the evil Murdoch and the saintly, guileless leftist media outlets, you have done absolutely nothing to counter my original point:

          Murdoch employs writers and columnists from both the left and right side of the spectrum. He is not afraid of the adults hearing both sides before making up their own mind.

          Apart from one lone columnist, once a week (Paul Sheehan), the ABC and Fairfax do not provide any balance whatsoever to their overwhelmingly left-leaning views and agendas.

          They are either too scared to offer readers like you any sort of balance (in order for you to at least try be an adult and make up your own mind), or readers like you prefer to be told what to think, or, at the very least, prefer your own prejudices to remain unchallenged and/or reinforced.

          Me, I love the fact that with a Murdoch paper I can read viewpoints from the right and the left before coming to my own decisions.

          You don't have that luxury, and you're silly enough for it not to bother you.

          Good luck with that.

        • COR80 on 05/12/2014 - 17:47
          -1

          @Where's_That_Cake:
          Well, all you've demonstrated is an ability to throw around trite, basic anti-Murdoch slogans to an appreciative, albeit easily pleased, anti-Murdoch audience, so I'm hardly surprised you'd flinch when it came around to actually substantiating yourself.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/12/2014 - 17:55
          -2

          @COR80: lol, I know you are but what am I?

        • Boshait on 06/12/2014 - 12:19

          @lucky.ozbargain:
          The Australian endorsed Whitlam before the 1972 election.
          http://whitlamdismissal.com/1972/11/25/the-australian-editor…

    • Boshait on 05/12/2014 - 17:20

      They think they are intellegent like Tonny Abbott… five negetive votes…

      Is this some sort of parody?

      • COR80 on 05/12/2014 - 17:38

        I don't think so, that's why it's so amusing.

  • Ringu on 02/12/2014 - 13:33
    +1

    Good X-Mas present for my mum, thanks OP.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join