Good for holiday reading.
AU$6 for the first 6 issues (then AU$97.50 every quarter)
I got my first issue today, it arrived via the post, it takes about 2 weeks to process from my experience.
It has been posted on Ozbargain before, but those offers have expired.
Hard copy, not the online edition.
Following the nine acquisition I wouldn't call them balanced. Costello's anything but unbiased. Hosting an LNP junket is totally on the level too. Plus they give Alan Jones a platform…
Good Christmas gift for my parents. Thanks OP!
Not worth it. The Guardian is biased political junk.
Yeah, a subscription to the Australian is so much better value /s
I can't wait for their next article on why George Pell is innocent, why Boris Johnson is basically Jesus, and a nice congratulatory article on how our current government is competent
I haven't followed all this stuff about that Pell guy, but I did see a clip recently showing the testimony of the "victim" himself proves he is a liar. Something about Pell being unable to rape anyone because he was in full public view the entire time, as well as the 'victim' being in a entirely different location at the time he said he was raped.
I'm no fan of the catholic church, but it doesn't surprise me even slightly that FACTS are again being omitted by most of the lying mainstream media - whatever sell$ advertising/newspapers is fair game.
There's plenty of free fake news available…why would you want to pay for fake news…
just to be fair. some of the data they cited are not fake
Some? You're happy with fake news if some turns out to be correct? It's trash.
Can you cite some of the fake news that's on the guardian?
Editing an article after publishing doesn't necessarily make that fake news. The original content and byline was certainly misleading though.
The use of unnamed and unverified sources does reduce the veracity of the story but also doesn't necessarily make it fake news.
The journalists clearly believed the sources enough to run the article. So either, the sources are accurate and the meeting happened (unlikely) or, the sources presented a convincing falsehood and the journalists believed it (plausible) or, the sources were presented a convincing falsehood by a third party and passed it on to the journalists unaware it was a falsehood (plausible) or, the sources didn't exist and the story in its entirety is a falsehood (possible).
As far as I can tell the guardian hasn't retracted the article nor have they been sued, despite threats.
@twjr: Big stretch. Was hoping for something more damming.
Funny thing is that the Washington Examiner also edited that story.
@Korban Dallas: Always check where the money comes from. The owner of the Washington Examiner is a Christian conservative multi-billionaire. Got his start with family money from his dad's oil business. Gives money to anti-gay, pro-gun, climate change denial and 'Christian science' organisations.
oh the humanity!
They should pay me $10 per week for brainwashing me.
It seems like a lot of people conflate The Guardian's factual articles with their opinion pieces.
Yep, hope people know the difference.
On the other side, Newscorp opinion pieces are polar opposite.
People claiming fake news. Give 🔗 to articles from the Guardian. Post ⬇️
There's also plenty of factual arguments in some of their opinion pieces too, Greg Jericho for instance.
That commie rag?
Go Newscrap! Climate change is a leftie lie and science is an abomination of god. Sheesh.
You could offer to pay me and I wouldn't take this crap.
Yikes! And here I was thinking Australians weren’t as bad as Americans. Look at these comments. You know what you end up with when you attack the free press ? Russia and China. How about you all pack your bags and go live there. I have and I never want to go back. All news has its leanings, that much is obvious. But what do we have that’s better ?
Attacks people expressing their opinions because it’s “attacking” free press. Oh the irony.
News outlets can publish whatever they want and citizens can say their opinion about what is published, that’s freedom.
Yeah it’s called discourse, nowhere did I attack their right to their opinion. Also this is a bargain site and those looking for a sub to the guardian would appreciate this post. Therefore the negs are pretty lame.
And just to clarify I don’t even like the guardian. But to call it fake news and neg a deal on it is just dishonest and petty.
So its like the Guardian except you have less money?
Not as good deal Normally free.
I guess people can comment against the guardian if they want but that doesn't change that this is a deal - you get something cheaper than what it was before. No need to neg hey.
How do you cancel this??
I'll stick to theage or smh, much more balanced.
Anyway, why does the guardian care about making money, isn't the world about to end due to the climate emergency according to them?