• long running

New York Times Basic Digital Subscription A$2 Every 4 Weeks ($0.50/Week, up to a Year) @ New York Times

1107
New York Times Basic Digital Subscription A$2 Every 4 Weeks ($0.50/Week, up to a Year) @ New York Times
Go to Deal
noscopedJFK on 19/06/2022 - 22:05 nytimes.com (6238 clicks)
Last edited 20/06/2022 - 14:51 by 1 other user

It's been about a year since the last deal was shared so thought I'd highlight that it was still around when I purchased just now.

NYT is obviously not everyone's cup of tea - that's fair. But I like it and think they do a pretty good job across a range of issues. You can check out Mediabiasfactcheck if you want to take a look at their bias and credibility. Shout out to pretz in a previous deal for highlighting the resource.

The Basic Digital Subscription does not include recipes or crosswords. Just the online edition and through their app. Price reverts after the first year so make sure to cancel before then.

Books & Magazines Newspaper

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times

Comments

  • banterbants on 19/06/2022 - 22:10
    +18

    $20 a year if purchased in one hit :)

    • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:18
      +20

      Consider your brain thoroughly washed

      • banterbants on 20/06/2022 - 07:28
        +5

        Never said I was buying it ;)

        Not interested in propaganda news

  • freedomofspeech on 19/06/2022 - 22:24
    +49

    Propaganda

    • yobeets on 19/06/2022 - 22:53
      +4

      What would you recommend?

      • Sapiens on 19/06/2022 - 23:12
        +3

        Economist

        • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:21
          -5

          Ah… a money-centric world view. That could work for all most some a few of us!

          • Bedgrub on 19/06/2022 - 23:37
            +7

            @tharlow: You’re thinking of AFR. Economist is broader than finance.

            • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:39
              -3

              @Bedgrub: Actually, nothing is broader than finance. And especially not The Economist

              • Bedgrub on 19/06/2022 - 23:44
                +4

                @tharlow: The Economist covers broader topics than just finance.

                • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:48

                  @Bedgrub: OK — name just one. Don’t get me wrong, they have some insightful stuff, like this. But it’s far from a source of inspiration for the modern thinker

                  • Bedgrub on 20/06/2022 - 18:35

                    @tharlow: Name just one what? Article?

                    What’s your benchmark news source so I can select one that you might like?

                • PukeyLuke on 20/06/2022 - 22:03

                  @Bedgrub: Yes and the New York Times covers broader topics than New York.

      • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:40
        +6

        I recommend The Guardian for the very finest neoliberal trash

        • jackspratt on 19/06/2022 - 23:55
          +12

          Always good to get an opinion from a "modern thinker" 🤣

        • cashless on 19/06/2022 - 23:58
          +6

          I recommend tharlow for fully objective accounts of all news outlets

      • prhino on 20/06/2022 - 08:58
        +3

        Probably Infowars

        • simb24 on 20/06/2022 - 12:15
          -1

          US buried Infowars as its not support "democracy" agenda, isn't?

    • Blitzfx on 19/06/2022 - 23:26
      +9

      True. They got exposed publishing Chinese Communist Party propaganda
      https://www.opindia.com/2021/07/us-media-washington-post-nyt…

      • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:35
        -4

        One person’s propaganda is another person’s principle

      • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 02:00
        +1

        No evidence of anything outside a few mil in funding from "Opindia" there. This is the kind of inference that gets people falling down rabbit holes.

      • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2022 - 02:17
        +20

        Maybe I’m a victim of reading the whole article and not just the headline, but the article says the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal were each paid millions and included a ‘China Watch’ supplement that could be reasonably construed to be propaganda because it was produced by a Chinese owned news organization, but the article only says the NYT was paid $50,000 for advertising, not the millions the millions the others got, and advertising is basically all propaganda.

        So if anything it seems to make me trust headlines even less…. Also trust less anyone whose conclusion is that they got caught publishing CCP propaganda.

        • tharlow on 20/06/2022 - 02:31
          +2

          Maybe I’m a victim of reading the whole article and not just the headline,

          The body… the final frontier. These are the voyages of the news seeker jkart… to boldly go where no one has gone before!

          Well, except the author, perhaps. Attention spans are getting worryingly… SQUIRREL!

          • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 02:37
            +2

            @tharlow: 🤡

            Were you down there screeching at Parliament House with the crazies and partaking in the sharing of all kinds of diseases round the camps? Sounds like it.

            • tharlow on 20/06/2022 - 02:38
              +1

              @Techie4066: Perhaps you should have a little more respect for the people’s elected representatives?

              • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 02:41
                +3

                @tharlow: Oh don't get me wrong, I volunteered for an independent and got a good laugh out of the Prayer Room exposé. I noticed you pled the Fifth.

        • Blitzfx on 20/06/2022 - 09:43
          +1

          $50,000 too much. There's a difference between "Chinese" owned and CCP backed influenced.

          and advertising is basically all propaganda.

          I'd guess someone is sympathetic to the CCP when they attempt to suggest CCP propaganda is anything like all other kinds of advertising.

          • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 10:53
            +2

            @Blitzfx:

            I'd guess someone is sympathetic to the CCP when they attempt to suggest CCP propaganda is anything like all other kinds of advertising.

            Completely hinges on what worldview and system you've been programmed to accept. When you compare how the CCP violates human rights vs how the US literally does the exact same illegally invading countries, you might see things differently.

          • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2022 - 11:42
            +4

            @Blitzfx: There's a difference between something that's an ad and something masquerading as journalism.

            I'm not comfortable with it either, but accuracy is important. The reality is even the Australian government advertises in other countries outlets.

            sympathetic to the CCP

            Not at all, their human rights abuses and censorship are particularly egregious. People who are vulnerable to propaganda (from one side or the other) are the ones that see things as black and white, either "it has to be millions of dollars for pure propaganda" or "CCP Good". The world isn't that black and white, and you're in trouble if you're expecting it to be.

            Real propaganda convinces you it's not, something you can't do with adverts, which clearly espouse a point of view. The 'China Watch' insert on the other hand, while obvious to the trained eye, is much more effective propaganda because it's masquerading as news.

        • 1st-Amendment on 20/06/2022 - 11:42
          +2

          Maybe I’m a victim of reading the whole article and not just the headline,

          Then you are doing it wrong.
          Read headline, get angry. That is how most people seem to do it.

      • PukeyLuke on 20/06/2022 - 22:19
        +1

        Do you realise how much of a fool you are for quoting something from OpIndia and did you even read the article.
        The article states that "China spent a total of $11,002,628 on advertising in US newspapers". Anyone can place an ad in any newspaper for anything.
        The NYT was not promoting Chinese Communist Party propaganda in a "cash for comments".
        Finally, do your research on OpIndia before ever citing them again, they have regularly been called out for making outrageously false and racist claims.

        • Blitzfx on 21/06/2022 - 01:00

          Did you even do your own research? What part of the financial documents documents submitted to the government was false?

          Anyone can place an ad in any newspaper for anything

          And yet you say

          The NYT was not promoting Chinese Communist Party propaganda in a "cash for comments".

          They are literally promoting propaganda.

          You must think the only types of ads are the ones selling a Refrigerator for 50% off

  • jv on 19/06/2022 - 22:36
    +1

    No my cup of tea.

    • shortielah on 19/06/2022 - 22:39
      +17

      What happened?!? Did you spill it? Did someone steal it?

      • edfoo on 19/06/2022 - 22:46
        +5

        Maybe jv only read news written by himself…

        • KangaDrew on 19/06/2022 - 22:56
          +5

          jv's news comes in the form of backtracking through past comments to tally up the negs and calculate if it's enough to hit the leaderboard for an umpteenth time running.

    • cashless on 19/06/2022 - 23:37
      +12

      If jv says “no”, then I’m gonna subscribe

    • Munki on 19/06/2022 - 23:43
      +2

      What is your cup of tea?

      • cashless on 19/06/2022 - 23:59

        Liptons?

  • alz on 19/06/2022 - 22:48
    +23

    Funny how every second article on this website is calling for some sort of attack or bombing or bringing democracy to some country.

    • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:12
      +7

      Democracy? Is that some kind of system where the inmates run the asylum?

    • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 01:56
      -3

      You mean like that attempted coup over there at the Capitol?

      Or left-wing resistance to war?

    • quink on 20/06/2022 - 06:43
      +18

      I just looked through the front page on nytimes.com and I'm pretty sure I didn't see any? If it's every second article, surely at least one of them should be?

      If you could just back up that assertion with some examples on their front page atm that'd be swell.

  • BargainBuddy on 19/06/2022 - 22:53
    +24

    I get my news from Facebook. Free and fake!

    • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:13
      -5

      It’s only fake if you want it to be fake

  • aal04 on 19/06/2022 - 22:54
    +5

    theres plenty of free news sources. alot unbias too.

    • jv on 19/06/2022 - 22:57
      +25

      alot unbias too.

      LOL

      • htc on 19/06/2022 - 23:02

        LOL

        Does that include ABC?

        • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:14
          +6

          I wonder how long their love affair with the Labor party will last?

        • jv on 19/06/2022 - 23:16
          +2

          Does that include ABC?

          ROFLMAO !!!

  • pizzacracker on 19/06/2022 - 23:01
    +15

    Good deal but as a former American, I have lost interest in the events happening in America. I am so much happier as an Australian

      • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 01:40
        +8

        r/QAnonCasualties

        • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2022 - 03:43
          +1

          🤓 ☝️

  • R4 on 19/06/2022 - 23:06
    +7

    Yet more left-wing MSM mumbo jumbo/revisionism/distortion?

    No thanks

    • Raynes on 20/06/2022 - 06:40
      +21

      thinking NY Times is representative of the left is insane

      • 1st-Amendment on 20/06/2022 - 11:49
        +1

        thinking NY Times is representative of the left is insane

        Well you said it so it must be true, a truly Leftist way of thinking if ever there was one.

        Let's see what someone else thinks about this for perspective:
        https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_St…

        https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

        NYT seems to skew left according to multiple other sources, but I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you believe this isn't the case…

        • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 12:27

          If NYT is centre-left on a global stage, The Greens are ultra-luxury communists.

          • 1st-Amendment on 20/06/2022 - 12:59
            +1

            @Techie4066:

            If NYT is centre-left on a global stage, The Greens are ultra-luxury communists

            So now that you are aware of this, does it change your original position about the insanity of calling NYT left-wing?

            • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 13:00

              @1st-Amendment:

              does it change your original position about the insanity of calling NYT left-wing?

              Nope, because neither are true. Seems you're getting your argumentation all tied up in knots here.

              Exactly why every opinion isn't worth spreading Mr 1st Amendment lol

              • 1st-Amendment on 20/06/2022 - 13:03
                +2

                @Techie4066:

                Seems you're getting your argumentation all tied up in knots here.

                If it seems that way then you need to think about it a little harder…

                • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 13:03

                  @1st-Amendment: Mmm substantive debate. Gotta love it. Thanks for this enthralling discussion.

                  • 1st-Amendment on 20/06/2022 - 13:10
                    +2

                    @Techie4066:

                    Mmm substantive debate.

                    A debate would require you to actually turn up with something other than your unqualified opinion, but leftists very rarely do…

                    • Ham Dragon on 20/06/2022 - 14:19
                      +3

                      @1st-Amendment: Haha slammed. That was fun to read. They never seem to reply, just question your mental state/cognitive abilities etc.

                      • [Deactivated] on 20/06/2022 - 21:35

                        @Ham Dragon: what else can you do but attack someones character when you are trying to argue against or intentionally misrepresent facts?

                        the only thing they're better at is making up word soups so convoluted that no one questions them and people just pretend as if they know what they're talking about, lest they become the focus of the impotent rage.

                        • Techie4066 on 21/06/2022 - 00:59

                          @[Deactivated]:

                          the only thing they're better at is making up word soups so convoluted that no one questions them and people just pretend as if they know what they're talking about, lest they become the focus of the impotent rage.

                          Example?

                          I have a single comment on this deal with a net downvote. That might speak mounds about your views.

          • R4 on 20/06/2022 - 23:35

            @Techie4066: Sounds about right

  • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:06
    +7

    The finest fakest source of news you’ll find anywhere — just be aware that you’re funding a globalist icon

    • jackspratt on 19/06/2022 - 23:11
      +7

      Is that you, Rupert?

    • cashless on 19/06/2022 - 23:52
      +13

      Yeah, if I wanna avoid fake news I go to Murdochworld. So sick of independent news agents. I want to be spoon fed pro-Trump bias while I scream at the tv

  • LookHere on 19/06/2022 - 23:09
    +4

    Why pay for one pro-Uncle Sam news when there are plenty offering the same everywhere you look?

  • phidj003 on 19/06/2022 - 23:29
    +10

    Considering the quality of most news sites these days - $2/month sounds pretty reasonable. I was Ok with $4/month but I see this as quite decent value.

  • tharlow on 19/06/2022 - 23:33
    +2

    Worth it for Wordle alone

    • banana365 on 20/06/2022 - 00:49
      +5

      You mean the free game?

      • tharlow on 20/06/2022 - 01:02

        But for how long…

        • banana365 on 20/06/2022 - 02:09
          +1

          For as long as they want people to play it. It's not like there aren't dozens of copy cats out there.

    • GandalfTheCheap on 20/06/2022 - 07:42
      +2

      Doesn't it say this doesn't include the online games?

  • tangobox on 19/06/2022 - 23:39
    +20

    Look beyond the infamously terrible parts and there's some of the world's best feature- and photo- journalism happening there. I get a lot out of my sub.

    • McFly on 19/06/2022 - 23:43
      +8

      Chaff to wheat ratio is too high.

    • tharlow on 20/06/2022 - 00:53
      +1

      I agree with the “look beyond” part. Far, far beyond, to where the truth lives. In Belmarsh Prison, probably

    • hippyhippy on 20/06/2022 - 01:36
      -3

      So you're looking past 99% of the content then….

      • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 01:43
        +2

        You upvoted the comment above (from the guy who upvoted this deal) thinking it wasn't comedic, enough said LOL

  • rabbit71 on 19/06/2022 - 23:40
    +8

    I think it is ok, but … it is so hard to cancel (you have to phone them and they make all sorts of offers and then forget to cancel) unless you pay through paypal where you can cancel through paypal itself. I regularly sign up and then cancel. I don't know why but at least with paypal I can.

    • tharlow on 20/06/2022 - 00:54
      +2

      It’s a tough cult to leave

    • Gustave on 20/06/2022 - 01:02
      +3

      You can cancel via live chat.

    • Techie4066 on 20/06/2022 - 01:45

      it is so hard to cancel

      @MAGAts

    • scix on 20/06/2022 - 13:13
      +2

      I just cancelled to switch to this cheaper offer. Did it entirely online and took less than a minute.

  • jebdra on 19/06/2022 - 23:52
    +40

    Wow. A lot of agro in some of these posts.

    Whether you like the politics or not, this is a bargain in the sense of the subscription cost.

    If you don't like the politics, why not just not read it and move on with your lives.

    • tharlow on 20/06/2022 - 00:57
      -8

      Wow… a voice of moderation. But it’s not yet time to move on until we’re at peace with ourselves. Breathe in, breathe out… slowly.

      Yeah — didn’t work

      • johnno07 on 20/06/2022 - 06:11
        +12

        22 comments on this post and counting - I think it's you that needs to breathe in and out slowly, to be fair.

    • Corgsta on 20/06/2022 - 09:25
      +6

      Agree. There’s a bunch of -ve votes purely based on political preference which I thought was not valid.

      Anyway for my 2c, for all those screaming about NYT being some extreme left propaganda site, it actually rates as centre-left and is factual. Have a look at the Media Bias Check website.

      Compare to our Murdoch dominated newspaper landscape and of course it’s going to look that way. MBC rates The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as “right” and “mixed” factuality. That’s way less factual and more off-centre.

      Links:
      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-telegraph-australia…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join