This was posted 2 years 11 months 28 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Washington Post 1-Year Premium Digital Subscription A$9.99 + Second Year Retention Offer A$9.99 (Was A$100/Year)

791
Washington Post 1-Year Premium Digital Subscription A$9.99 + Second Year Retention Offer A$9.99 (Was A$100/Year)
Go to Deal
belbo on 06/01/2022 - 12:32 subscribe.washingtonpost.com (4002 clicks)
Last edited 11/01/2022 - 13:53 by 1 other user

Happened across this offer as a banner ad on a WP article I was reading. There is a lesser option without the bonus subscription (and other features) - but it is the same price. Likewise, there is an option to pay AUD99c every 4 weeks - which is more expensive if you want to take the max subscription period. Cancel any time and keep the remaining paid subscription period. If you try to cancel it offers you the same deal for another year. It doesn't do this again if you try to cancel again. I have made a calendar reminder to cancel in 2 years as I suspect the 2nd year subscription will be cancelled if you cancel your subscription before the second year commences.

Also includes a full featured 30 day pass to give away every month.

I'm guessing the URL is correct. I couldn't get back to it as I had already subscribed when I posted this. Please update the URL if it is wrong.

Subscription confirmation -

Your subscription includes:
• Unlimited access to washingtonpost.com from any device.
• Unlimited access to our entire suite of mobile apps for iOS, Amazon Fire and Android.
• A 30-day digital pass to give to a friend or family member every month.
• One bonus subscription to share with a friend or family member.
• Unlimited downloads of top-rated e-books from Pulitzer prize-winning journalists at The Washington Post.
• The Post Most, a curated daily newsletter featuring the most important and interesting stories of the day.

Books & Magazines Newspaper

Related Stores

The Washington Post
The Washington Post

closed Comments

    • tharlow on 06/01/2022 - 13:57
      +1

      Well, they did endorse Hillary Clinton. Because a newspaper isn’t just for reading — people need to be told how to vote

      • HardQuiz on 06/01/2022 - 15:14
        +2

        How old are you?

        FWIW, it’s very common for newspapers and magazines across the US to endorse a candidate in a race.

        Nothing unusual.

        • tharlow on 06/01/2022 - 15:34
          +1

          Normalising stupidity and dependent thought — apparently it’s worked!

      • todayssawyer on 07/01/2022 - 06:35
        +2

        Mate, this happens all the time. National and state-based newspapers here in Australia endorse parties every election. Not saying it's a good or bad thing, but your point is completely moot.

        • 811b11e8 on 08/01/2022 - 07:32

          They only endorse liberals never seen an endorsement for another party.

          Who knows might change now the Gaurdian has come to Australia.

      • Amaris on 10/01/2022 - 14:10
        +1

        @tharlow Remember the Tele's "Kick this mob out"?
        https://files.ozbargain.com.au/f/00/93500.jpg?h=067528e9

  • VBO on 06/01/2022 - 13:46
    -4

    The media should instead pay subscribers to read their fake news.

    • nedski on 06/01/2022 - 13:52
      +2

      Oh god, I also bet you think that COVID19 is also a hoax…

      • tharlow on 06/01/2022 - 13:58
        +1

        It’s also not the only game in town… the elective surgery waiting list says hi

  • TruthNuke on 06/01/2022 - 14:06

    progressive news smart
    conservative news dumb

    • tharlow on 06/01/2022 - 14:11

      I think most “news” is designed to suck the joi de vivre out of your soul, but that’s just me

      • TruthNuke on 06/01/2022 - 14:11
        +3

        me smart

        • tharlow on 06/01/2022 - 14:12
          +1

          Me not so smart. It’s joie de vivre, of course…

  • Daz91 on 06/01/2022 - 14:26
    +4

    Is this a left wing news outlet?

  • mskeggs on 06/01/2022 - 14:27

    how did you cancel to get offered a second year?

    • belbo on 06/01/2022 - 14:37

      If you go to your subscription details in your account there's a faint grey "cancel subscription" (or similar words) hyperlink.

      • HardQuiz on 06/01/2022 - 15:29

        It says why do I want to cancel? Does the 2nd year offer appear after that question?

        • myKidsPwnedU on 06/01/2022 - 16:49
          +1

          Say 'because it is too expensive' - then they will offer the $9.99 for the next year. That's what I just did.

  • NotDavidJones on 06/01/2022 - 14:37
    -2

    "Includes 2nd Subscription to Share".

    Anyone want to share their 2nd Subscription, please PM me.

  • hodgey on 06/01/2022 - 14:38
    +1

    Kudos to vicvance on this post a year or so ago but you can save all your money using a Firefox or Chrome extension such as Bypass Paywalls; google GitGub or iamadamdev. The add-ons makes The Washington Post (and other newspapers) websites think that your browser is the Google Crawler, just visiting the site to do its usual Google business.

    • SydStrand on 06/01/2022 - 15:04
      +7

      I don't get why people think primary news reporting should be free. It costs money to hire journalists and send reporters around the world. Paywalls are just a logical response to print revenue drying up. If no one paid for it, we'd just get editorialised news aggregators rehashing a dwindling number of primary sources.

      • enveloped on 06/01/2022 - 20:18
        +1

        If no one paid for journalism, we'd just get news paid by those who can profit from the news itself.

    • Charlie Dont Surf on 06/01/2022 - 16:11

      It's a great tool.

  • donotuse on 06/01/2022 - 14:46

    Can I earn American Airlines AAdvantage Miles for this?

  • rektrading on 06/01/2022 - 16:17

    Why pay?

    The site looks free https://www.washingtonpost.com/.

    • KangaDrew on 06/01/2022 - 16:34

      Looks can be deceiving… They don't paywall the main site.

      • rektrading on 06/01/2022 - 16:36
        +1

        Please link a paywalled story.

        I clicked on 5 or 6 and they were all working.

  • billsa on 06/01/2022 - 16:42

    You can also get the online newspaper with a PressReader subscription for free through your local library.
    Orange Man Bad.
    Sorry couldn’t help myself.

  • Icecold5000 on 06/01/2022 - 16:44
    -2

    Why would I pay $10 a year for fake news when I can know the truth for free on inforwars?

    • KangaDrew on 06/01/2022 - 17:19
      +3

      triggered

    • mandelbrot on 06/01/2022 - 17:30
      +1

      Inforwars? Is that a bit like onlyfams?

      • KangaDrew on 06/01/2022 - 17:37

        Paid to sell your soul and say/do whatever you can to make a dollar?

        Hmmm, yeah, that checks out.

    • cashless on 06/01/2022 - 17:45

      Yawn

  • JPerez on 06/01/2022 - 16:46
    +3

    Wouldn't give my hard earned money to corporate biased media.

    You can watch Glen Greenwald, Jimmy Dore and even Russel Brand on Youtube. They curate the news and weed out the bs.

    Still trying to find a local equivalent for Australian news.

    • KangaDrew on 06/01/2022 - 17:19

      The Project

      hahaha I jest, I jest!!

    • cashless on 06/01/2022 - 17:47
      +3

      Jeez, imagine having to rely on Russell Brand to weed out the truth for you.
      Sad state of affairs

      • Amaris on 06/01/2022 - 18:34

        Add Alan Jones to this list.

      • JPerez on 06/01/2022 - 19:31
        +4

        I'd rather let him dissect the news instead of getting fed corporate garbage by Fox, WP, CNN and the like.

        Breaking Points is another good source.

      • 1st-Amendment on 07/01/2022 - 09:56
        +1

        Jeez, imagine having to rely on Russell Brand to weed out the truth for you.

        As compared to who, Waleed Aly? Whoopi Goldberg?

        There is no absolute truth here, and I'm not claiming Brand to be perfect, but out of mediocre options Brand seems to be doing a better job than most. Simply because he delivers information in the form of questions rather than ramming statements down your throat.
        If you have better suggestions I'll be happy to take a look.But don't be a hater unless you have a better suggestion.

  • JPerez on 06/01/2022 - 17:00
    +2

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=by+pass+paywall&t=h_&ia=web

    There's an addon that will help you read sites.

  • ozbar on 06/01/2022 - 17:53
    +3

    WTF I care what happened in Washington. This is Australia ffs. WP is a propaganda fakenews anyway that's collapsing now here to swindle Ozzies. News is free online everywhere, the reliable ones are few and far in between.

    • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 04:44
      +2

      How to unpack this?

      Firstly, WaPo has national US coverage and the US is a key strategic and trade partner to Australia.

      Secondly, can you show examples of why you think it’s ‘propaganda fakenews’?

      Thirdly, some online news is free, like some food out the back of Coles is free. How do you determine what a reliable source is? I don’t rely on a single news source but yes I read Wapo among other things. It’s been a paper of record in the US for decades.

      I see a few complaints that ‘it’s owned by Bezos’ (and meanwhile there’s 50 links to Amazon from OzB everyday haha) but being media savvy means you know enough to decide for yourself if bias intrudes into the news coverage. Again, you need a few sources get a handle on that.

      • 1st-Amendment on 07/01/2022 - 10:28

        Secondly, can you show examples of why you think it’s ‘propaganda fakenews’?

        Lol, take a look at the front page today, the entire thing is still Anti-Trump propaganda despite him being out of office for almost an entire year.

        but being media savvy means you know enough to decide for yourself if bias intrudes into the news coverage. Again, you need a few sources get a handle on that.

        Actually my advice is try switching off completely for a month, then come back. With a fresh pair of eyes you will see how truly crazy the corporate media landscape truly is. There is no objectivity anywhere, every outlet is an echo chamber feeding people their own ideology back to them. If you think this only applies to the other side, then you are part of the problem.

        • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 12:56
          +2

          Lol, take a look at the front page today, the entire thing is still Anti-Trump propaganda despite him being out of office for almost an entire year.

          No, it’s reporting on the one year anniversary of the attack on the Capitol, which Trump fomented. Trump refused to concede the election he lost, and to this day talks about running in 2024, with majority support of Republicans.

          It’s silly and irrelevant to say ‘he’s out of office’ as though his situation is normal. And it’s news: a major speech by the sitting POTUS under these circumstances.

          The problem here is not the newspaper.

          • 1st-Amendment on 07/01/2022 - 15:35

            @Soave:

            No, it’s reporting on the one year anniversary of the attack on the Capitol

            You asked for examples then makes excuses when presented with them. You are a perfect example of living in an echo chamber…

            Here is an example for contrast: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10243585/Woke-Washi…

            When it's the other team it's 'hell on the earth', 'the worst thing imaginable', 'literally Hitler'. When it's your team, 'oh it's just a car accident.' or 'mostly peaceful protests' lol.
            The fact you think this is balanced reporting is embarrassing. Had the Waukesha attack been done by a white supremacist rather than black supremacist do you honestly think the reporting would be exactly the same?

            The problem here is not the newspaper.

            Half of it is. The other half is the gullible people who swallow the propaganda. And that applies to Fox News too.
            Turn it all off for a month and see if your opinion changes, only then might you discover how deep you are into the lies.''

            • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 16:03
              +1

              @1st-Amendment:

              You asked for examples then makes excuses when presented with them. You are a perfect example of living in an echo chamber…

              The first problem is you aren’t separating ‘news you don’t like’ from propaganda. You have given an example that shows you have a clue about the distinction.

              The Daily Mail report is weak but it at least notes that Wapo actually follows up and makes corrections as stories evolve. That’s the mark of a news organisation and not a clickbait rag.

              More broadly, the Daily Mail is a reliable source for photos of pop stars in bikinis but that’s it. The Aus version is a silly tabloid for idiots at best. The UK version has a history of appalling right wing diatribes going back to the 30s. Please try harder.

              • 1st-Amendment on 07/01/2022 - 16:23

                @Soave:

                The first problem is you aren’t separating ‘news you don’t like’ from propaganda.

                Because you say so lol…

                I gave two contrasting examples, you give nothing in return except excuses.

                You have given an example that shows you have a clue about the distinction.

                I gave you two examples of WaPo deliberately distorting facts. You simply made excuses without offering any facts.

                The Daily Mail report is weak

                The example is WaPO, not the Daily Mail, I merely linked any article that demonstrated with facts how WaPo deliberately deceives. The fact that you got confused shows you don't really grasp the difference.
                Do you agree that WaPo distorted the reporting of that story to follow a narrative? Or do you believe that 'a crash was caused by an SUV' is the most accurate version of events lol…

                If you follow US news then I'll leave with some more examples with WaPO deliberately deceived in order to portray a narrative rather then the truth:
                Breona Taylor
                Steele Dossier
                Nick Sandmann
                Bubba Wallace
                Jussie Smollett
                Kyle Rittenhouse
                etc etc

                All of these cases went to court where the actual facts were presented and the WaPo narrative was found to be wrong EVERY_SINGLE_TIME.

                You asked for examples, but the cognitive dissonance will kick in now and you'll simply make more excuses why none of it is true.

                • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 16:50

                  @1st-Amendment: You stated:

                  take a look at the front page today, the entire thing is still Anti-Trump propaganda despite him being out of office for almost an entire year.

                  So, again, that’s not propaganda. And I said it’s immaterial that Trump’s been out of office for a year although I see that point being made repeatedly by MAGA apologists. But that’s your prime example for attacking Wapo? 😂

                  Copying and pasting a list of well worn right wing gripes isn’t an argument.

                  And I directly responded to your other complaint about the Daily Mail coverage. Yes it’s a silly beat up which of course triggers people like you because you’ve been briefed by right wing influencers about what to think. You don’t need news so you’re lucky to save the ten bucks I guess 😉

                  • 1st-Amendment on 07/01/2022 - 17:17

                    @Soave:

                    So, again, that’s not propaganda.

                    Because you said so. No wonder you are struggling with this.

                    But that’s your prime example for attacking Wapo?

                    Nope, it's merely one example of many. You asked for examples, I provided half a dozen more, then you ignored them all which you ignored…

                    Copying and pasting a list of well worn right wing gripes

                    Not gripes, actual news stories that the WaPo reporting deceptively. Funny that this is your logic though. You decide your truth based on who says it rather than actual facts presented. No wonder you swallow that rubbish so easily.

                    And I directly responded to your other complaint about the Daily Mail coverage

                    I didn't complain about the Daily Mail, I gave an example where WaPO got a high profile story wrong, because you asked for it. You got tied up shooting the messenger rather than focus on the facts. There is a pattern emerging here…

                    you’ve been briefed by right wing influencers about what to think.

                    Another display of clown logic. You can't argue the subject so you simple make something up.

                    Stick with Washington Post, it seems to be right at your level lol…

                    • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 17:36

                      @1st-Amendment: Since you don’t read the Washington Post, it was pointless of me to ask you to provide actual evidence outside whatever you can copy off Facebook or panic-search for on Google.

                      Likewise, I accept that you think Wapo should suppress articles where Trump’s actions are criticised by anyone for any reason, since you believe that constitutes propaganda.

                      Please tell me more about how you aren’t indoctrinated by critiquing all the other things you haven’t read. 😂

                      Your username is also hilarious btw 😁

                      • 1st-Amendment on 07/01/2022 - 18:18

                        @Soave:

                        it was pointless of me to ask you to provide actual evidence

                        Sure was. Because once you asked for evidence and got it, you then spent the rest of the discussion deflecting away from it because the evidence doesn't fit your existing beliefs.

  • Fybre on 06/01/2022 - 18:50

    I'd rather get my unbiased and reputable news from facebook.

  • JPerez on 06/01/2022 - 19:27
    +1

    Reddit Bot Brigaders are alive and well on OzB

  • Lets Go Brandon on 06/01/2022 - 22:41
    +1

    Washington Post is the yank version of China's Global Times

  • Trioboy on 07/01/2022 - 00:14

    This should be free with my Amazon Prime membership.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2022 - 06:03

    Woke leftist propaganda rag

    • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 13:17

      Supposing you save the 2.74 cents per day that this deal costs, what sort of news outlets would you recommend?

      • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2022 - 16:15
        +2

        I have no recommendations regarding the legacy media. They are all corrupt agenda driven propaganda arms of the two major parties. I can recommend The Rubin Report (Dave Rubin) if you would like an honest take on the current US socio-political fracas.

        • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 16:30
          -1

          The Rubin Report is convenient way to see all of the major alt-right stars in a non-confrontational interview setting. Hey guys, let’s just hear them out ok?

          But of course I’m brainwashed by corporate media or something 😅

          • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2022 - 16:31
            +2

            @Soave: Yeah, I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is alt-right. I know your type well. Thanks for the chat.

            • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 16:34
              -1

              @[Deactivated]: Ok mr centrist fair and balanced username 😉

              • [Deactivated] on 07/01/2022 - 16:36
                +1

                @Soave: Left is only spelt one way, sadly.

    • dubo1981 on 11/01/2022 - 23:08

      Oversharing snowflake right here ^

  • Waltervp on 07/01/2022 - 08:26
    +1

    I'm always really quite appalled at the price local papers ask for reading the local online news, so whenever I get a reasonable subscription offer for a renowned media service I am happy to pay just in principle to support media. I don't buy newspapers, haven't for a long time, so am happy to support online press. Once it is understood we are prepared to pay reasonable fees maybe I can start reading my local paper online again instead of just not getting local news!

    • Soave on 07/01/2022 - 17:42

      It is pretty expensive but it’s a fact that local news gathering costs money, and relatively speaking we’re a small media market. Thinking about the big piles of newspapers at my house growing up, getting at least two papers a day, I can’t quibble with the bill for electronic access to news today with 24/7 story updates, video and interactive multimedia etc etc.

  • luvthebargains on 07/01/2022 - 09:35
    +1

    This price is only 1 year. Not 2 years.

    • belbo on 08/01/2022 - 06:38

      Cancel and you get offered another year at the same price - unless that has now changed - in which case the deal needs to be updated.

  • stuntmanron on 07/01/2022 - 09:36
    +1

    Reading the comments on the thread, it makes me wonder why tin-foil isn't the most searched for bargain on the site!
    The amount some of you must go through to make your hats……

  • HelpMeiCantSee on 07/01/2022 - 13:59

    Hm. An American news source sure inspires confidence

  • Tonku on 08/01/2022 - 10:04
    +2

    What a joke deal wash poo

  • LSGH on 10/01/2022 - 11:30

    thanks OP, will try them out for a year

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join