long running deal
dont forget to cancel before they charge u full price.
handy for anyone wanting far left media coverage in printed form.
cue the comments…
Guardian Weekly Magazine 6 Issues for $6, Then $32.50 Per Month @ The Guardian
810
Garagesale on 12/08/2021 - 10:43 support.theguardian.com (2089 clicks)
Last edited 12/08/2021 - 14:41 by 2 other users
Last edited 12/08/2021 - 14:41 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
- 1
- 2
anything closer to centre than Sky News is far left, according to a depressing number of Australians.
Only the brainwashed ones. Admittedly, that is a sizeable percentage…
IKR, Brainwashed people are all the people who don't think exactly me. I'm normal and everyone who disagrees with me is far-xyz…
Charity is quite the comedian^
True, after all they don't explicitly advocate for ethnic cleansing. Practically hippies.
Until Jeremy Corbyn came along, I never realised how much the Guardian hated anything to the left of it
The quilton deal with Amazon was better value
The Guardian comes pre-printed, on Quilton you need to smear your own.
Sounds like they prefer Murdoch to smear their tp which they most likely hoarded on the last panic buy.
you sir win the internet today, a thousand LOLs, very funny!
This would be more satisfying though
Far left? Hardly.
If comprehensive research, balanced opinion, and analytical criticism of our government is far left, well… I guess I'm far left.
I'd call the newspaper pretty far left, dunno about the magazine. Still, at least it's not afraid to throw some punches. The Age while more centrist is also too soft.
the newspaper is absolutely nowhere near 'far left'.
yeah because its faaaaaaaaaaar faaaaaaaaaaaar away from the far left which is like just shy of Anarchism, Libertarian Marxism etc, here come the Negative votes hahahahah
When UK Labour nominated the hard-left candidate Jeremy Corbyn to lead the party, the Guardian was relentlessly negative. Very little daylight between them and the Murdoch press as far as Corbyn was concerned. The BBC was extremely hostile as well. The Guardian more or less admitted that it was campaigning against Corbyn, but said that he deserved it, and so it therefore wasnt a problem:- https://theconversation.com/media-bias-against-jeremy-corbyn…
It is the newspaper of doctors, lawyers and HR departments, which is to say it is about as left wing as Atilla the Hun. If your definition of "left wing" is basically pro-capitalism with a veneer of performative socially conscious liberalism, then I suppose it fits that definition. But if you honestly think that the Guardian is on the same page as Stalin, Pol Pot etc, then I think you've left your marbles somewhere.
Lol stalin? wtf.
Which country really won the Tokyo Olympics – and at what cost?
It's hardly 'extremely biased' to just quote facts.
@bigbadwolf21: which part of this "please show me where the balanced opinion is in the guardian?" specified politics?
Balanced opinion … hmm. Who are their resident rightard opinionators?
Well put.
The guardian isn't far left but its opinion definitely isn't balanced. Comprehensive research and analytical criticism yes but almost always from a left or left-populist position. This isn't criticism of them because every news outlet pretty much caters to its target demographics (i.e people read more of what they like to read). Its just not very accurate to characterize them as having a "balanced opinion".
Glad someone else can see it.
It changed after taking money from Bill & Melinda…..so stopped reading it.
From journalists that have worked at the Guardian-
"Numerous commentators have criticized The Guardian for its coverage of Assange. Glenn Greenwald, former columnist for The Guardian, writes that the paper has "…such a pervasive and unprofessionally personal hatred for Julian Assange that it has frequently dispensed with all journalistic standards in order to malign him.
Another former Guardian journalist, Jonathan Cook, writes: "The propaganda function of the piece is patent. It is intended to provide evidence for long-standing allegations that Assange conspired with Trump, and Trump's supposed backers in the Kremlin, to damage Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential race."I now read a much broader spectrum of reporting, ranging from independent Aussie news sites, the Conversation, Al Jazeera, some Murdoch stuff, RT, KCofA, hard right stuff, hard left stuff and turned my echo chamber into a cave.
I try to keep an open mind, read as many articles as I can from the left, the right and centre. There's no need to accept news from a single outlet these days, whatever you're political leaning.
no need to accept news from a single outlet
This has always been true.
Yes, but now news is (nominally) free; pre-internet you had to buy print copies, so had to choose which side of the political fence and multi-millionaire (now billionaire) proprietor your money went to.
@alidli: More than cost was the issue of time. If you had the time to read several papers that probably meant you'd regularly visit a library. Libraries however would be unlikely to stock far right material unless it was categorised as historical.
This is the way.
If you're too scared to have your opinions challenged, and keep bleating about Murdoch and Sky boogeymen, then they're not worth a piece of sh*t in the first place.
Far left? Hardly.
The thing I like most about the Guardian is it's fairly balanced and gives voice to a varying degree of opinions because it's owned by a trust that ensures editorial independence and not some Billionaire Megalomaniac trying to influence the readers like any of the propaganda that leaks out of the Murdoch Press.
I guess anything looks like "far left" if your compass is stuck in Murdoch's magnetic field…
It's all relative though isn't it. What looks far left to someone fairly left, is further than a centrists perspective. I think Murdoch is poison but you immediately write me off with that comment because i'm not some kind of true lefty? I consider myself left wing. But this attitude is so typical of the left.
You could make the exact same argument about the far right also. It's all relative to your own personal view. I'm not writing anyone off?
I've been reading The Guardian for decades (not just the Oz version), and in a short period, to stop closing down completely, it has had to find money from other sources including governments.
In my experience, there was a nuanced change in the reporting of government and officialdom, very slight but there.there was a nuanced change
They're pretty consistently critical of Gove. Also consistently critical of Johnson's government.
Who wouldn't be…they're a pair of opportunistic shysters
@alidli: Ok but if Gove is behind it and presumably the purpose is to compel favourable coverage then it’s not very effective so far
At least it wasn't as bad as the change at the Washington Post, where they're now suddenly have deep feelings about how unfair it would be to tax billionaires differently to the average Joe. I used to have a subscription to them, but Bezos apparently learned a lot from Murdoch about how controlling the press gives power.
Haha…..why else would a wealthy person "save" a failing newspaper.
Money buys influence……doesn't matter if it's a business, charity, trust, friendship, whatever.
Examples of Bezos skewing the Washington Post Murdoch style? Had a quick search myself but could only find this.
Opinion: How an unfair tax system fuels our broader divides
First up, ProPublica. The investigative news outlet obtained access to the tax returns of some of the wealthiest Americans, including Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder who personally owns The Post. The returns revealed that many of the world’s richest men and women paid a lower effective tax rate — much, much lower — on their income than the typical American.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/16/billionai…
@shaybisc: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/09/think-twi…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/13/billionai…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/21/most-effe…It can be summed it in this article - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/05/private-f… - they're for taxes that don't hurt the likes of Bezos and argue why billionaires are an important part of a democracy. Gotcha.
After seeing all those articles in the space two months, I cancelled my subscription. Agree it's nowhere near Murdoch bad but I refuse to fund a private fan club for Bezos when there's better press around.
Agree. Centre-left is fair, anything else is either confusion or agitation.
Yes it is far left. But unlike much of the left who wants information and opinions banned or suppressed, I like to see freedom in the media of ideas.
I think the left wants misinformation and disinformation banned, not information. There's a pretty big difference.
Who judges what is misinformation? Adolf Hitler?
This is actually a fair question, though I think the Guardian do it better than most.
The Guardian generally gives those with legitimate alternative views a voice, not the crackpots, and they're on both sides of the political / ideological spectrum. Go far enough left and they're just as crazy as the far-right.
No, he’s dead.
Best advice is to use an expert in that field. For example, if I need advice on complex experimental pharmaceuticals, I get my info from an ex sports coach, like Alan Jones.@crossbow: I’m not sure you’re aware of what site you’re on, we’re on ozbargain. The secret is in the name. Oz. Australia.
@TheRealCJ: News corp ran a smear campaign against Fauci.
The poor guy has been brainwashed directly or indirectly. He's formed his own independent opinion that just happens to line up with Newscorp just like thousands of other independent thinkers.
@crossbow: I’m living in Australia, so not really following Dr Fauci’s comments on USA best practice.
If I want my car fixed I ask a mechanic, if I want medical advice, I ask a Doctor, etc.
You’ve stated that you don’t want “expert” advice or to follow general consensus (sheep) - I assume unless there are a lot of YouTube subscribers, then it’s not sheep?@crossbow: Dunno how many sheep you've met but they can be notoriously difficult to control.
Some farmers even use highly trained k9 helpers to get them where they want them to go.
@Plimsol: Or that accomplished scientist specialising in vaccinations and virology, Bill Gates.
What did happen with that vaccination program he set up a few years back? Where he did more damage than good?
Aaaaand there it is. Godwin's Law.
they want anything they fisagree with banned. cancel culture.
very diffetent from the 60s left of free speech, open information, truth etc.
makes u wonder who is now pullung the strings….Look at us. We're the hippies now.
Keep getting:
"Sorry there was a problem
Please double check the name and contact details you provided and try again."Everything is fine. Now it's also saying my credit card didn't work, when it's correct. And when I select PayPal, it's trying to charge me $32.50 😑
it probably means it got a lot of far left donations and don't need your money anymore.
Same exact situation over here unf, card doesn't work and PayPal it wants to charge 32.50…
I had the same problem
Same here.
Has anyone successfully completed this?
I've just tried it again and was successful. All details the same, paid by card
Yes, looks like they fixed the bug. Thanks for replying :)
That's what happens when parties like Labor abandon their values to chase after mindless voters who measure everything against 'how is that going to help me feed my baby?'.
Any political idea that puts long term benefits for society as a whole above short term profit maximisation for a a few is seen as 'far left' and balanced journalism that dares report on those ideas is lumped into the extreme category. Sad place the world has come to.
To even have any influence, Labor need to be in power. To be elected they need to appeal to most of the population and that does include the "mindless voters" who are probably more interested in "Where's ma jerb in coal?" and "Oh no, I may lose the potential to have a negatively geared investment property one day."
Those mindless voters are influenced by ad campaigns from fossil fuel and negative press from News Corp, Fairfax.
It's a sad state, but it's hardly fair to blame a party that hasn't been in power for 8 years.
alp needs to focus or eorkers/ jobs not woke nonsense.
they need to do whatever works to get into power. then they can drop their real policies on negative gearing, death taxes etc
100% I'm left and agree with half the woke shit but woke people just have no idea about politics.
The problem is that the rise of Social Media has given a voice to the extremists, influencers and others with a penchant and interest in influencing the general idiots to their extremist positions. Only yesterday Facebook uncovered and banned a shadowy Russian network paying Insta Influencers to spread their anti vax hoax videos on youtube. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/facebook-removes-rus…
The middle ground where rational discussion and compromise is reached has been lost in favour of 2 distant polar opposites and a load of dogmatic stereotypes. Anything remotely centrist is seen as being weak and a sell-out. I remember a few weeks ago being abused on Social Media by both Left and Right wing extremists simultaneously both seeking to stereotype me as their polar opposite, simply for taking a centrist approach. The sheep are the people who change their own values to suit what they perceive as the group they identify with. It is reasonable to hold opinions and values variously aligned with both sides of politics. You may believe in a strong social support safety net, gun control and vaccinations but still be a believer in capitalism, free enterprise and hate identity politics. The issues aren't mutually exclusive, you can hold your own opinions on each issue. The folks with a problem are those who approach a situation thinking (I'm a Lib/Labour/Greens person, I better lookup what I am supposed to think about this issue, where do people like me stand). I remember once both signing a petition supporting a Green's councillor's efforts for better cycling infrastructure and simultaneously criticising a Green's Senator online for a childish, inaccurate and embarrasing identity politics position. Generally i hate Greens politics but on individual issues important to me I'm open to whoever has what I believe to be the best solution.
Are you suggesting that voters should vote against what they perceive to be their interests?
It's all there, I would hope an educated voter "puts long term benefits for society as a whole above short term profit maximisation for a a few".
Most voters are not part of the 'few' who directly benefit from inaction on important issues, but are either brainwashed into believing BS or, equally likely, too complacent to consider long term consequences of the policies they support by voting in the same old same old.
To spell it out even more clearly: if someone was trying to bribe me with say a new public swimming pool in my electorate, rather than giving them my vote I would be even more alert trying to find out why they want to bribe me into voting for them. What's in it for them? What will it cost me in the long term?
Sounds like you agree that voters should be voting towards their interests as well. Sounds like those parties who believe their polices are better for society in the long term could do with some improvement in their messaging allow voters to perceive that their self-interest aligns with voting for said parties.
@cadwalader: It's the old conundrum of short term vs long term. Short of lying the messaging can't make much difference. It's a lot easier to enjoy convenience today and just ignore the consequences years down the track.
Take obesity for example, everyone knows the negative health effects, yet waistlines in this country keep growing. A lot of food tastes so nice right now and obesity and related health issues only result after years.
An interesting observation in that context is that obesity is still more prevalent in lower socio-economic backgrounds. The same people who benefit the least from many current policies in the short term (just enough to buy their votes), and will suffer the most from the negative consequences later.
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/health-conditions-a…
@team teri: But then who are you to decide that valuing long term benefits is objectively better for the individual than valuing short term benefits? Isn't this based on your subjective values?
What if the individual values pleasure more than you and what if you measure longevity and lifespan more than them?
You're making the mistake of assuming that everyone shares your values.
I'm not sure why you're saying messaging can't make a difference if you claim people are being "brainwashed", that's messaging isn't it.
If you argue that is has nothing to do with messaging them people are absolutely voting for what they value and there is no right on wrong decision within each individual. If you don't want to accept the flaw is in the messaging, you just have to accept that their interests are different from yours and they'll continue to vote that way.
@cadwalader: Good discussion, thank you. I enjoy that we manage to exchange arguments without things descending into name calling as happens way too often here.
Unfortunately (for long term positive outcomes) people aren't computers that can be programmed to stay on the optimal track, they are prone to distractions and make flawed decisions on a whim all the time.
When it comes to messaging "don't think of an elephant" illustrates what I mean. An impossible request.
That's why tobacco advertising is banned these days, just putting warning labels onto the packs or in the small print of ads did not work. Everyone knows how harmful smoking is, many smokers want to quit and simply can't.
Most people agree that speed limits on roads are needed (even if they may disagree on the exact speed for certain stretches of road), yet we often find reasons why - only this one time - we should be allowed to go faster. Without enforcement by stiff fines posting speed limits would be meaningless.
There are plenty of other examples where we humans act against our own and society's long term interests and regret it right after the fact, yet we keep doing it.
On any political issue where short term gain needs to be weighed up against long term pain the odds are heavily stacked. The side of politics that is mature enough to show discipline in order to achieve long term positive outcomes is at a major disadvantage compared to people willing to exploit humanity's weakness to fall for shot term incentives.
Ummm hardly "far-left". Amazing sports team at the guardian, highly recommend people tune in to some of their podcasts.
American propaganda?
Are you talking about the foreign influence from the American company Newscorp?
Thanks Got it.
don't really care if this (or australian.. smh.. age.. sky.. sputnik) is left or right. school always taught us to read for ourselves and investigate before coming to conclusions. i think school also taught us to respect differences in opinion. obviously that's no longer necessary!
generally i actually like reading the guardian, it challenges what i believe by presenting a different view point. without being a troll
hmm yup I think you would care not to read Australian. don't say you don't care about what you read, you obviously stated your alignment lol
The problem is it's difficult to make you're own judgement if you're not presented with all the facts depending on the political leanings and agendas of the source
Personally when I read articles, I just go for the facts and double check it with a different source, then I form my own opinion. The opinions in news articles is just an opinion from a single person. No reason why a journalist from the Sky or Guardian should have a bigger say. If I wanted an opinion from a single person there are many of those on Ozbargain, Whirlpool or Reddit.
You're right. Everybody's opinion is equal.
When world health experts tell me that covid-19 is a dangerous virus, I seek alternative opinions from posters on YouTube who claim it's a hoax (or 5G waves, or Jewish space lasers).
Thus I balance up these equally valid opinions and come to an informed decision.
- 1
- 2
Not sure if the OP is being silly or… silly.