Weekly magazine at $1 per week for first quarter (12 issues), then reverts to normal price at $120/qtr. Not sure when the deal started or when it will expire.
The Guardian Weekly Subscription 90% off: $12 Per Quarter for 12 Issues ($120 Per Quarter Thereafter)
1802
soan papdi on 20/05/2024 - 22:36 support.theguardian.com (2413 clicks)
Last edited 21/05/2024 - 17:09 by 1 other user
Last edited 21/05/2024 - 17:09 by 1 other user
Related Stores
closed Comments
Pop up book for you.
Sounds like something a conspiracy theorist entirely lacking in irony might say
@1st-Amendment: The stupidity of calling yourself the first amendment on an Australian website is astounding and sad haha
Having to qualify your statement as humorous with "haha" is cringe.
He's a person that gets triggered by a username, imagine how fragile you have to be to do that.
@Snagsandonions: I'll leave this here….. :)
https://www.tiktok.com/@offgridfarmerj/video/706420386386729…
Go get your booster 🤦
@Bretttick: You're a bit of a little fish, aren't you buddy
Why don't we toss you back in and give you the chance to grow to big boy 1st-Amendment size
There is a sucker both every minute…
What does that even mean?
How does this differ from the 'free' website?
You get to pay for this
We had a sub at work for a while. The articles are much more thorough on print version. More of a classic magazine style journalism than your content written for a web format.
You mean not the usual shock headline followed by un-checked/verified copy paste from some other unreliable online source. That is the state of most "news" that people consume these days.
The guardian themselves had one of these examples recently: 'MAYOR OF MUSLIM COUNTRY CONDEMS HAMAS' headline.
But buried deep in the article in the 5th paragraph, it has the second half of his statement, where he also says Israel is not doing itself any favors by indiscriminately killing civilians.
$10 per issue?
Well, there is a robust business model that's likely to survive going forward. When Netflix can't survive because its prices are too high to retain subscribers, a producer of pieces of paper is going to charge more for less?
It's weekly, so presumably 52 issues a year. About $2.30 per issue. (please correct if my mental arithmetic is wrong)
Ah! My screw up. It's $120 per quarter not per year. Sorry sane.
@jebdra: No probs.
Thinking about it, they would probably do better making it a free advertising based magazine and distributing to high net worth households. There are probably enough champagne socialists to make it work, but they would need to delete all the wokism - the blue hair brigade tend to be young and unworldly. The GenX/Boomer socialists wouldn't have any time for persecution politics.
I haven't read Guardian Weekly for a few years, but classically it was a mix of decent reporting from The Observer, Le Monde and The Washington Post - a different beast.
This is a printed magazine, delivered to your door. Not saying it's better or worse, but that's how it's different.
Does it still come on extremely flimsy bogroll style paper?
No, though I miss the old style. The paper now is full colour glossy. But not too heavy a stock.
does that effect it recycling¿
Recycling should be fine, but it affects composting.
Better than right-wing trash lol Had to deal with Libs for almost a decade. No thanks.
They do stuff like acknowledge what scientists are saying, just awful!
That has to be stopped! When rigorous scientific study disagrees with my ideology, obviously the scientists are wrong.
Don't be ridiculous. No scientist has ever lied before. The scientific method is the gold standard!
@OBEY YOUR MASTERS: Scientists lie all the time, but they have methods to confirm each other's findings. The truth is eventually found, unlike fairy tales told two millenia ago.
@bio: Well yes and no. Even if the truth is uncovered many years from now it doesn't stop these newspapers from completely running amok and leading the general public up the garden path.
@OBEY YOUR MASTERS: It looks like moving the goalpost from scientists/scientific method to newspapers was absolutely necessary so that you can defend your argument.
@bio: Wowzers bro. I thought that's what we were discussing here?
There are plenty of fairy tales being told today. We have the Replication Crisis which has been known about for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
The scientific method is difficult to follow when you can't test things in isolation properly. How many things can you test in true isolation? Yet these things get passed off as credible research. And they are wrong.
The biggest problem with science is scientists. They are just the same as everyone else. Easily bought and keen to protect their job, position, reputation, funding, body of work, ideologies, politics, dogmatism… you name it.
Then the media gets hold of bad research and they have all of those same things to protect as well.
At the end of the day you make your bets on who's right and who is wrong. I'm not getting in a days long rant with you.
Questioning the science requires you to first understand it… might be a stretch for u by the sound of it…
Questioning the science requires you to first understand it
It doesn't actually. Anyone can observe nature, and if it doesn't match a theory then the theory is wrong.
by the sound of it…
'By the sound of it', is not how science works. You are revealing your lack of critical thinking skills here…
Anyone can observe nature, and if it doesn't match a theory then the theory is wrong.
It is more likely that your observation method is wrong. If you "observe" the night sky with your naked eye you would think that stars are actually fireflies that can't fly. Galileo was smarter, so he used a telescope. Ditto flat earth believers.
It is more likely that your observation method is wrong.
Is it? See my post below/above (not sure how the thread work here) about the various climate 'science' predictions that has been shown to be wrong over and over by anyone with a pair of eyes.
If you "observe" the night sky with your naked eye you would think that stars are actually fireflies that can't fly. Galileo was smarter, so he used a telescope.
You actually used a great example here, but for the opposite reason that you think. Galileo only confirmed what Copernicus already theorised with his naked eye. And this was already proposed by the Greeks 2000 years earlier. The Arabs also worked it out hundreds of years before telescopes were invented.
This idea that science can only be done by experts is an elitist view, which is leftist ideology perpetuated by media outlets like the Guardian.
@1st-Amendment: Hmmm
Not sure that everyone is capable of observing the 43'' per century precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which demonstrates and validates Einstein's general theory of relativity.
You'd be much more likely to not notice it and therefore by your method, the theory is wrong.
Not sure that everyone is capable of
Sure. Some things do require specialist knowledge but some doesn't. The post I replied to said you're only allowed to ask questions if you are a scientist. This is called elitism not science.
Another example is when we were told that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. Any person with a pair of eyes and Google Maps can see that this was wrong. No science degree needed.The post I replied to said you're only allowed to ask questions if you are a scientist.
The post said "Questioning the science requires you to first understand it". "Scientist" is not a title given by an authority. Anyone who uses the scientific method is a scientist. The keyword is "scientific method".
we were told that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013
Told by whom? Al Gore? Did you actually read a paper that forecasted that? Even if there was such a paper, picking a wrong prediction using the power of hindsight does not invalidate scientific method.
various climate 'science' predictions that has been shown to be wrong over and over by anyone with a pair of eyes.
Again, not all predictions are correct. You are nitpicking details, such as how much time we have left, similar to the theologists who were arguing how many angels could dance on a pin. The elephant in the room is that we have been measuring the surface temperature of the earth since 1800s and it is getting warmer. We should slow it down, or stop it.
Anyone who uses the scientific method is a scientist. The keyword is "scientific method".
Except when you disagree with the narrative, then you are a cOnSpIrAcY tHeOrIsT!
picking a wrong prediction using the power of hindsight does not invalidate scientific method.
My point here is that there is whole industry, or which the Guardian is a key player that has sprung up as claiming to be 'on the side of Science' when it is no such thing.
The elephant in the room is that we have been measuring the surface temperature of the earth since 1800s
This is a good example of pseudo science. There is no reliable measurement of 'the temperature of the earth' until 1980 when satellites were able to do it for the first time. Prior to that you are relying on isolated, sporadic and uncalibrated manual measurements in very few locations (relative to the size of the earth), and proxy data (ice cores, tree rings etc) which comes with margins of error.
We should slow it down, or stop it.
Show me the hard science that shows this is even possible. For bonus points show me how paying more taxes makes it possible.
Unfortunately they have veered to a number of ideological positions rather than their centrist objective neutrality of previous times.
Their international reporting of what is actually going on in the world at large is still (mostly) first rate.
Agree. I’ve been reading their web version for years and was once a supporter. I’ve found them to be the least biased out of the options for Australian local news but the past few years they have gone more to the left, and now show obvious bias toward asylum seekers, Labor governments, Palestinians/Hamas, etc. On climate change, i think it’s undisputed and agree with their position but i am getting quite sour in the mouth now on their anti-Israel reporting and fully cut anti-Dutton/Liveral coverage. I would read some of the right wing press if it wasn’t all paywalled. Just for completeness.
I read france24.com for unbiased World news (with a slight focus on French/European/African coverage) these days. I also listen to a great podcast called Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps who is an Aussie former journalist and that cuts through the bias for me.
You can use mediabiasfactcheck.com for finding what the bias slant is for news sources. Apparently AAP is neutral in Australia but i think you need to pay a subscription to access it. Despite being non profit.
I’d rather chew on my left nut than listen to or read some right-wing nutcase boomer.
Anyone know if this subscription will remove the article cap on their mobile app?
If it issues you a subscriber number it will.
Yes, we get a subscription number.
Yes it does
Can’t imagine this being valued at $10 an issue.
Not full of Harvey Norman ads unlike news corpse
If i read this and watch sky news does that mean i have a balanced news diet,
Good thing OzB comments have up/down votes so I know which views are correct and which ones aren't
Hard to tell if you are joking or not…
I don't know what combination of news sites can topple the propaganda crap coming out of sky news - when I come up with 1 I'll let you know.
Beetoota Advocate + The Chaser + Crikey
The punch line is that they are all the same. Someone with a hard-on for one media outlet is just as ignorant as someone batting for the other team. The trick is to rise above them all, then you will see that are all the same lies
Everyone has an opinion. Don't be fooled into thinking that because it's written in a newspaper that it makes it any better than anyone else's.
Don't be fooled into thinking that because it's written in a newspaper that it makes it any better than anyone else's.
Newspapers are dead here. I never read The West cause it's an elitist paper anyway with bias.
Guardian
No, it means you listen to both sides lies and manipulations. The best news to read is your life’s news, not what left and right spankers want to force you to think, feel. What’s that old saying, believe half of what you see and nothing what you read in the media.
Yeah ok, I’m on my way to Gaza to see for myself what’s going on
Awesomeness
@1st-Amendment: So, do you actually have a clear idea in your head who the "them" are, and what they hope to achieve by reporting on Gaza, and how the manipulation actually works, or is this the general vague "oh do your own research they're all out there man and you're all sheep" style conspiracy-dude-knows-all-the-secrets fare?
So, do you actually have a clear idea in your head who the "them" are
Yes. 'Them' is anyone in power who use the resources they have available to manipulate as many other people as possible. If you can see this occuring on side, why are you blind to it on the other?
or is this the general vague "oh do your own research they're all out there man and you're all sheep" style conspiracy-dude-knows-all-the-secrets fare?
No. That is what we call a Straw man.
So I answered you questions, could you return the favour and answer mine?
Why is Gaze more important to you than anywhere else it the world? Why was that the first thing that came to you?So, do you actually have a clear idea in your head who the "them" are
Yes. 'Them' is anyone in power who use the resources they have available to manipulate as many other people as possible.
Unsurprisingly, the conspiracy theorists has nothing in the back drawer for when they get asked probing questions. The clear idea is a vague description/definition of basically anyone? No head count, locations, affinities, the Gaza publication thing I specifically asked about is down to "anyone in power who..".
The "I'm a special boy who knows a secret" rhetoric is essentially useless because it can be applied to anything, with zero background knowledge of the subject at hand.
"Drinking some orange juice, huh? Oh yeah, that's definitely "orange" juice. They put a picture of an orange on the bottle and it's coloured orange, so of course it's orange juice, right? Enjoy all that Vitamin C, that the scientists told you about, which definitely exists"
And this is why the conspiracy theorists have nothing in the back drawer for when they get asked probing questions
I answered your questions, you avoided mine…
The clear idea is a vague description of basically anyone?
Well that is the point you seem to have missed. EVERYONE has an opinion, why do you think that because someone owns a newspaper that theirs suddenly has more value? If someone from Angola owned a paper and published a story every day on the plight of Angola, Would you suddenly jump on that bandwagon too?
The "I'm a special boy who knows a secret" rhetoric
I just asked you a question which seems to have triggered you. Interesting that you are so triggered by simple questions. Are you afraid of what is behind the curtain?
@1st-Amendment: I specifically asked you who the "they" were in your "they're publishing Gaza stories" narrative and I got the "anyone in power is a they" non answer.
Because you don't have answers, you have questions, but it makes it you feel smarter to pretend you have answers.
Enjoy your so-called Vitamin C, which definitely exists.
I got the "anyone in power is a they" non answer.
I see you missed the point again, even though I dumbed it down for you.
Because you don't have answers, you have questions,
That's right, you're slowly working out out. Well done, now see if you can join the last dots together…
but it makes it you feel smarter to pretend you have answers.
No I just asked questions, you even said so yourself. I ask questions and you hide from the questions because that is what people do when they can't think for themselves.
Enjoy the Guardian, you are their target market.
@1st-Amendment: A conspiracy theorist avoiding a direct answer and inviting me to follow the breadcrumbs and Do My Own Research, what a massive surprise
Get well soon
A conspiracy theorist avoiding a direct answer
Yes, that is you. I asked you why you care so much about Gaza and you never answered. Well done, you worked it out!
inviting me to follow the breadcrumbs and Do My Own Research
I didn't ask you that at all, I actually explained it to you in language a child could understand.
@1st-Amendment: I don't think he will answer you, he is still pondering the Weapons of mass destruction reporting in Iraq.
What is "life's news" exactly? Mrs Smith heard from Mrs Jones that slut Brandy was sleeping with Martha's husband?
Scandalous. Any pap shots?
Doesn’t Brandy's husband do FIFO work? I heard Brandy’s neighbour has a camera down their driveway, maybe he can confirm.
Nope, it's all the same shit.
Wow how our views of left, right and centre politics are now so whacked out…. People do realize that if something isn't the extreme/semi extreme right view they hold, it doesn't mean it's left wing right? Clearly not.
I am not sure how to define extreme views. But The Guardian is held by the Scott Trust, so it doesn't need to pimp whatever propaganda the media barons want to throw down our throats. Independance and ethics are more important than ideology. To the best of my knowledge, the Guardian has never argued in court that it can't be guilty of libel on the basis that nobody rational would believe it (unlike another media empire I could mention).
The Guardian is held by the Scott Trust, so it doesn't need to pimp whatever propaganda the media barons
Every media organisation has a head, and that person has an opinion, and that opinion is reflected in their content.
To believe that bias is not possible in you favourite outlet is naive to the extreme. They are all as bad as each other.
They are all as bad as each other.
Clearly you've committed a lot of time to reviewing all the media to come to such a nuanced, insightful take.
North Korea's publications are on the same level as integrity as the New York Post, ABC News, The Spectator, The Economist, NewsMax, New Scientist and TIME magazine, got it.
Well produced weekly paper. I don't agree with them politically but interesting stories you wouldn't normally hear.