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
@cadwalader: Defining information as facts is arguably impossible. Some things we are almost certain of. We don't always have all the information and know everything. I think this is a much healthier approach to scepticism.
@belongsinforums: I think the trick here is to use that scepticism to fact check and separate the fact from opinion as much as possible. Even then opinions are driven by reasons and those should be driven by fact.
There is a lot of information and data out there and it just takes some effort to find and corroborate it through the net and libraries. Of course data could be falsified but if it's from a credible source, a lot of it can be evaluated and verified through the methodology.
Which brings me back to my point. The sky or guardian journalist adds zero value to that beyond presenting me a starting point from which I can search for facts. Also, as far as I know, if a decision has to be bad on opinion alone and no fact backing any alternative, generally the consequence or impact to my life has been very little. (I.e it doesn't matter to me whether there is a god, or Jewish 5g lasers but it matters to me that the elevator has a safety limit or I cannot breathe on water.)
The Guardian lost me 20 years ago when it started referring to bloodthirsty Iraqi terrorists as 'the Resistance'.
That said, the news articles - if not the opinion pieces - are usually balanced and well written. Their website is an excellent source of covid information.
Those seeking profound, balanced analysis are best served by the Economist. It's pricey but the journalism is often exceptional.
The Guardian lost me 20 years ago when it started referring to bloodthirsty Iraqi terrorists as 'the Resistance'.
So what were the grounds for USA to invide Iraq again? How is it justified these days? How do we percieve that war?
Also cannot not notice that you're looking for "balanced analysis", yet you're calling something you didn't like "bloodthirsty terrorists".
Your valiant freedom fighters, between tossing occasional Molotov cocktails in the direction of American tanks, were slaughtering tens of thousands of fellow Iraqis for such 'crimes' as religious apostasy, homosexuality and advocating female equality. They were piling up bodies of men, women and children like cordwood along Baghdad's boulevards.
'The Resistance' indeed. Nice company you keep.
And throwing gays off buildings like they do in Iran etc is just "cultural differences" heh
There are plenty of other countries to image if human rights violations are the only reason for war. Strangely, the only countries where people need liberation happen to be resource rich.
@ihfree: Gotta love how the world is black and white to john71, BrownBargain et al.
Yeah, the "far left" just climaxes by preserving the right to maul people for thievery. Or whatever have you in the pile of semi-relevant, ad-hoc arguments.
@pizzaguy: I'm not too fond of genocidal religious fanatics - of any stripe.
Apologies if such insensitivity makes you uncomfortable.
@john71: I appreciate that and I hope I didn't get intrusive in the discourse here. Some other people's comments seem straight inflammatory, esp. by calling small-time lefties "far left".
@pizzaguy: Not at all.
I consider the Iraq invasion the greatest American foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. It was a foreseeable tragedy, and I protested against it.
But I certainly did not appreciate the glee of a few journalists at the Guardian whose reflexive anti-Americanism blinded them to the sectarian savagery the invasion had unleashed. That's when I cancelled my subscription.
Overall, the Guardian is a quality publication. I visit the site daily and occasionally contribute money as a supporter.
the economist is great but it does have a pro uk bias and slight seing to the right.
Yeah cue the comments, I'd rather not read toxic propaganda
What news sources do you recommend for someone looking to avoid toxic propaganda?
Go to the source to remove bias. I.e. covid related, screw the media's "specialist" and read something from the lancet instead. Too much opinion and not enough factual information nowadays.
I have no doubt that your average person would never lack the time, ability or inclination to peruse professional medical journals.
When they added a lane to my local highway, for instance, I spent weeks digging through engineering diagrams and publications. I have no engineering training - it just made me feel better about myself.
@john71: I know many people that enjoy it and tend to get me to recover any pay articles, as well they are members of Ozbargain also. I prefer to avoid the media when the matter is of such importance. People can only blame themselves if they do not read a variety of sources, including those that are peer reviewed
@john71: There's an entirely different spectrum of data that you're referring to here and it seems a bit like a strawman.
What were you hoping to get out of reading the engineering diagrams and publications beyond feeling better for yourself? You do not need to be an engineer to understand what the planned length was or where the exits would be. This is the stuff that impacts you. If you couldn't understand the grading requirements or chemical composition of the road surface, why would that matter to you?
That's the same question you need to ask when someone says read a medical journal. Anyone whose first language is English can read an article on COVID to understand its impact on them and to the world. They don't need to get into the nitty gritty of the genetics, structure or biochemistry of the virus.
Anyone with enough intelligence to read a book, order from a menu, read a shopping mall map, drive a car, withdraw money from the ATM or use the internet to read the guardian or sky news can go right to the source and understand the things that affect them.
@john71: Its going to take time for you to internalize information regardless of the source, its called learning. 15 mins is nothing if you want to be informed of what matters to you.
I'd recommend reading multiple sources, and being aware of the bias in many outlets. I still read Guardian articles occasionally, but I read them through the lens of knowing they have a very definite political leaning. Their opposite would be FOX I guess, and I also read their articles through a lens. The truth would be somewhere in the middle I guess.
Michael West is effing fantastic. And his YouTube videos are really engaging. Definitely recommend
What news sources do you recommend for someone looking to avoid toxic propaganda?
Lol you're doing this wrong. 'Which liar should I believe if I don't want to believe lies'?
My advice would be to switch off altogether. It's a crazy idea, but the world still turns if you don't read the news. Who knows you may even end up being a happier person because of it.
its looking to deduct the full 32.50 though?
I'm getting this as well.
same.
Anyone have success?
I am very successful.
Credit worked for me, PayPal did as you said.
How does this compare to 2ply?
just more colorful mostly red.
1 cleans up poo and 1 manufactures poo
Paying for propaganda
those against this, where do you go for news?
Sky News, mate. None of that lefty MSM sheeple progaganda for me!
Gotcha. Have honestly never read/seen it but going by comments it's the most heinous of news. I'm sure those that despise it - through their own enlightenment and absolutely not just blindly following the opinion of others - believe Murdoch bad, therefore Sky News bad.
It's only thanks to Sky News that I learnt that Dan Andrews is a radical communist fascist, and that crime is caused almost entirely by people whose skin tone doesn't exactly match that of Pura milk.
Sky News is the voice of the silent majority - the sensible, decent people who fight for the freedom of not being masked or vaccinated, who know that racism is lefty propaganda and that public hangings are the solution to much of society's ills.
so you never read the Guardian. yup sure, I believe you.
I have a friend who is a Sky News/Fox News(Tucker fan) so I did actually spend time watching it a few months back. There were many outright lies or things that were fairly easily disproven. The way they talk to their audience was awful - as if you're a member of a special club who are onto something the "sheeple" are missing out on. There's nothing like being lectured by Cory Bernardi on what common sense is.
They're about to face a senate inquiry after a week-long Youtube suspension for misinformation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58168048
They're also deleting videos, maybe in preparation for the Senate inquiry : https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/10/sky-news-austr…
They outright lied about Senator Hanson young: https://www.smh.com.au/national/sky-news-pays-40-000-plus-co…
They outright lied about e-petitions on the Australian Parliament House website and were made to apologise for it: https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/apology-to-kevin-r…What's terrifying is that this is free to air in regional areas now:
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/t…@ihfree: Cheers. Pretty concerning. There seems to be a cult status to some of these pundits.To be fair with those deleted videos, it's probably for the better. Though an apology for misinformation wouldn't have gone astray haha. Unfortunately, pointing out factual errors etc probably makes little difference to a staunch supporter. I don't see many reading/watching the news to challenge their beliefs, only to confirm them.
@DarkProject: Don't forget that when they get caught out, they claim that their news is "entertainment" and "not to be taken seriously".
Isnt it ironic they are pushing for millions of paying subscribers because in UK you can get free newspapers? Same thing newscorp just shut down, free newspapers.
Anyway guardian do good non political articles, worth a read if really need something.
its all political as with murdoch at the other end of the spectrum
So, so wish the OP had refrained from political comments in the description.
Especially they didn't seem to pay attention at history classes and are confused about what the far left is, invoking all the far-right wannabees to chip in with their self-righteousness and denialism.
your wish is not granted.
try the pond fairy at the wishing wrll.i think most would agree that thr guardian is very left wing. not as far left as the socialy weekly tho
I wasn't asking, I'm feeling regret and disappointment. Perhaps it's not only the history classes that were neglected.
"Far left" has speciffic connotations, unfortunately obscure to people who have never even spoken to those who experienced it.
The Guardian may seem radical to some fearful peeps, but in a historical and social context it isn't radical, by no means. Unless you're a feudal lord beamed down from hundreds years ago. Otherwise you're either making a joke or being ignorant, so please, keep that in mind when talking outside your bubble.
Sure, so the far left are misunderstood, but all the criticisms of the far right are bang on the money. No blatant overarching bias here huh?
This. All as bad as each other.
Nah, it's your and some other folks inability to grasp that calling things "far right", "far left" is taking things to extremes.
The Guardian is merely leftist, not "far left", no matter how many times you type it.
I'd call it far left, with terrorist organisations like ANTIFA being extreme left. Leftist is the ABC and SBS, they have to try and hide it a little better because of their public funding.
@addison666: HA, that's hilarious. The ABC comes under more scrutiny than any other media organisation and are continually audited. It's interesting that you put media organisations on a scale with ANTIFA. Where does Sky/Fox News fall? Extreme right? or maybe they've fallen of the spectrum into crazy town.
If they ABC did the equivalent of what Sky just did(fake news, outright lying) you can guarantee that we'd hear about it and that heads would roll.
Get the PressReader app & you can find “Guardian Weekly” in there, use your library card to sign in/up for free. It says that I have 30 days worth of free subscription but in my account it shows as 5 years before expiry. Anyways, you will get this free for at least 30 days.
Not sure if that guardian weekly is AU edition though.
"far left media c"
The paper that consistently supported the U.K. Liberal [ note, Whigs, not the tories who used the "Liberal" word in Australia, or the U.S term of abuse for anyone who imagines governments have any role in healthcare or social well-being] centrist for decades?
Standards have shifted. I don't see Katharine Murphy marching with the Socialist alliance any time soon…
Anything not far right is now far left according to Murdoch etc.
If it was really far left - then it wouldn't come printed on paper.This is a decent middle of the road read. Clearly critical of the right wing nut jobs.
For me the biggest problem is the huge delay in receiving the paper.
It's available on Thursdays at proper newspaper places. But delivered meh…delivered, it generally arrived on the Tuesday following which was just too delayed for something prepared on the Monday prior.
Anglo-Saxon propaganda? Lecture you how to root motally
That's a new one, lel.
Could you please explain in a bit more detail?
I'm very sorry if this is a dumb question I really just wanted to clarify:
Is this $6 per issue for 6 issues (6x6, therefore $36 for 6 week's worth of magazines), or $6 all up for 6 issues (i.e. $1 each?)
It's $6 for 6 issues, so $1 for 1.
Thank you for clearing that up, I was just sceptical that the deal was too good to be true.
The Guardian Weekly is also available from most Australian libraries for free using the Libby app. As is The Economist.
Thank you - fantastic advice!
Is this Australian news?
I’m a subscriber because I support quality journalism. It’s also just a really nice and informative magazine to flip through. Good paper, easy to read, etc.
We had a subscription at work. The printed guardian is highly informative even compared to the web version. I was surprised. Unfortunately too dense for my coworkers attention spans so we cancelled.
It's just way easier to get news from Facebook memes. The more image compression artefacts they have the more reputable they are.
Such a good weekly read, happy subscriber here.
Aussie news?
Nah mate some pommy site spreading paid news. i wouldn't read in there for anything Aussie.
Watch waleed for Aussie news
Global news.
Thanks OP, we’ve certainly found where ozbargainers sit politically.
Far left, but they believe they’re centrists.
I’ve always said, the truth to news sits somewhere in the middle of sky news and the guardian. Ones far right and the other far left
I think you'll actually find that Ozbargain probably has a better cross-section of society than many other sites. The extreme left and right both exist here but for the most people here are just average people looking for bargains with the occasional cheapskate.
If you think the commentary here is anywhere near "far left", you seriously need to revaluate your definitions of left and right(stupid terms anyway). There's a strong chance that they've been skewed by the media that you consume.
Does the normal price for any Guardian subscription seem expensive to you or am I just stingy and poor?
The Guardian vs News Corp/Sky is not some left vs right world view.
News/Sky specifically back political leaders and parties that benefit Mr Murdoch. They run puff pieces on Trump/Abbott/Morrison and attack stories on their opponents. Whenever Abbott or Morrison screw(ed) up, News run front page stories about their nice families, building chicken coops, etc, or paint the opposition as idiots from the old TV show Hogan’s Heros. They selectively run stories to push readers towards their favourites, such as minimising Climate Change effects and promoting denier stories, undermining health advice, etc. It’s a very unhealthy relationship between media and politics, that profits both the Coalition and News Corp to the detriment of the nation. News Corp opinion is mostly fiery stuff designed to wind up cultural indignation, firing up their supporters to attack alternate views, regardless of the facts.
The Guardian is a news outlet with an editorial viewpoint strong on environmentalism, equity, community, diversity, etc. Their opinion writers go to great lengths to back their opinions with references from experts and diverse sources, including News Corp. it would be great if News Corp did similar, but from a conservative viewpoint, but they don’t.
Agreed. The Guardian has an independent ownership they are not compromised by political and commercial influence.
Sky/Fox/News Corp are flat out compromised privately owned media pushing pre determined talking points for its owners political/social/commercial interests. This isn't even debatable.
I could see why regular folk think it's left vs right since media ownership is not diverse in this country or even worldwide. The mainstream privately owned media is usually heavily slanted to the right wing so that its talking points appears the norm (or the centre) for uninitiated.
Ohh independent is it? Or is that what they tell you? Yup independent but get funded by certain countries and political parties with vested interest, have you ever wondered why they run articles that viciously attack politicians? Wonder why they defend a certain country and rarely run so watered down article criticising the same country( think for a minute which country bingo you got it)Wonder why they do that if they are independent. Spade is a spade
Would you like to expand on this? Preferably with some facts and sources.
Can anyone deny that Murdoch has been a malign influence on America?
He's our revenge for what the Americans did to Holden.
Poor Australia - It hurt itself in the confusion.
If you have any doubts this news outlet is biased, look at the number people rushing to its defence. There is a real emotional attachment here that only results from some sort of confirmation bias, I mean if they were truly centrist people would no opinions of them either way.
Black is white. Up is down. Just keep your head down, don't question the narrative and things will go easier for you. Australia, 2021.
"It must be biased, because people are saying it's unbiased,"
That's some solid logic right there.
Here's someone now, trying to twist what I've said to mean something completely different, why do you feel the need to defend this publication?
I'm not defending the publication. I'm ridiculing your simplemindedness.
The idea that centrists don't have opinions is ridiculous. Everyone has a different idea of where the centre is.
Left/Right is such an oversimplification - The typical division is into socially/economically. Realistically, everyones varies by topic.
They have opinions, but not strong enough to defend a particular news outlet. Is there a reason you feel the need to defend this one?
Lol, that's ridiculous. You've been online too much. Get out and meet some real people… once lockdown ends.
Guardian is Far Left??? If only you had a clue about left wing media. See Jacobin (and subscribe)
- 1
- 2
That COVID is a dangerous virus is not an opinion.
Why do you need a journalist to tell you that when there is plenty of data on it
You're conflating facts with opinions. When experts say something in their realm of expertise that is true - thats facts. You can check the data on that. Being an expert does not automatically turn every word you say into fact. Data has no opinion behind it. Everything correct information conveyed by experts has data behind it and can be verified. It's not just an opinion.
There is no reason to give journalists' opinions (which is quite different from them reporting on facts) more weightage than a random person.