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 (2408 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
encourage me to join all the dots…
I explained them above. I can't help you if you can't read…
@1st-Amendment: Here's a head scratcher for you, how can you 1. Propose it's better to read no newspapers at all because they're ultimately a source of bias and 2. Comment meaningfully on the levels of bias therein if you're admitting it's something you're not sampling?
"I don't eat Chinese food, it all tastes the same anyway".
Great insights, chief.
Comment meaningfully on the levels of bias therein if you're admitting it's something you're not sampling?
Logic fail.
Please show where I said I've never read a newspaper
Great insights, chief.
Indeed. Come back when you learn to read…
@1st-Amendment: I know this game. Unfortunately the price of admission is you showing me where I said you've never read a newspaper.
Hint: "not sampling" is different from "never sampled", if you're having difficulty with the ol' reading and logic, Professor
I know this game.
Sure, you keep telling yourself you're right. That's how logic works..
@1st-Amendment: Oh, are you not telling yourself you're right?
Is that the difference between me and you, I believe I am right but you don't believe you are right?
Conspiracy theorists have the best thought processes, they really should be able to run more things and make decisions for the rest of us.
Oh, are you not telling yourself you're right?
No, because as YOU already pointed out, I am merely asking questions that you avoid answering. See how reading is important?
Conspiracy theorists
Bloop! Bleep! 20 GOTO 10…
@1st-Amendment: Just Asking Questions aka JAQing off.
How is this
The fact that you mentioned Gaza shows that you have already been manipulated by them.
A question? Isn't this asserting someone has been manipulated by "them"?
Wouldn't
"by the way, in this example who specifically do you mean by "them"?"
be a better example of a question that should have a clear, nonvague answer?
Bleep bloop, robots accuse people of being conspiracy theorists
I mean, you're literally telling us an unknown "them" are manipulating us (per my quote above re Gaza) but it would be robotic of me to call that a "conspiracy theory"? Isn't this the textbook definition of an actual conspiracy theory? That the "they" are conspiring against us?
@1st-Amendment: You answered it to the best of your ability
It's a low bar, but an important distinction
@1st-Amendment: I guess we can have a final pass at it. I'll be quoting you directly for clarity:
1st: "The fact that you mentioned Gaza shows that you have already been manipulated by them"
Crow: so do you have a specific idea in mind who this "them" is?
1st: "Yes. 'Them' is anyone in power who use the resources they have available to manipulate as many other people as possible."Note how your answer absolutely doesn't cover a specific example of the Gaza "them" in my question, nor convey a clear and concise idea of the key individuals or institutions.
It is, in brief, a vague and garbage non answer.
Note how your answer absolutely doesn't cover a specific example of the Gaza them in my question
If you had've read the post above that one then that would be very clear. But once again you demonstrate that reading isn't your thing.
The thread started here: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/15286289/redir
Try reading all of the words this time…
@1st-Amendment: "the answer is oh so very clear and simple, here, go back and see if you trip across my intended meaning. Obviously this is a much better way to resolve your question that cutting and pasting (or repeating) the relevant words"
The most amusing part of conspiracy theorists process is they think they're fooling anyone with the "I'm the Riddler and I know all the secrets and you're oh so close to seeing the grand scheme of things if only you could connect all these lucid dots"
It's all so simple, right up until it needs an explanation
Back to Telegram with you.
The stories in the mag likely not even political by nature. Independent writing offends people looking for a political echo chamber.
I wish this statement wasn't as true as it is.
When so many "news" sites just ape what politicians say verbatim, somehow independent writing is considered left wing. As the stereotypical conservative, middle aged, white male, I just don't understand how the Guardian can be painted lefty fanatics by some, I just don't get it.
Just read their opinion pieces. There is some consistency in which parties they criticise and which ones they are supportive of.
@realJuliusCaesar: But opinion pages aren't news. Of course you're going to identify bias in opinion columns. That's what they exist for. If you go into an opinion section and are shocked it's ful of opinions you've only got yourself to blame for being disappointed/shocked/outraged.
@RolandWaites: Nothing to do with being shocked. The commenter didn't understand how the Guardian could be painted lefty. I'm explaining that nearly all their columnists support left wing politics. And that's fine. It makes it a left wing publication though.
To a right winger, anything that isn't as far right as them is, by definition, left wing.
There's no such thing as neutral or centrist. You're with us or against us.
Yep. Centre is now viewed and treated as right. Not slightly right either. Unless you are firmly left your views are largely dismissed and labelled as x, y, z.
All sides can be guilty of this, although I would opine people who hold right wing views do it more frequently.
Agree with the former not the latter
Indeed - and vice versa
Ew
The Guardian isn't locked behind a paywall. This isn't a bargain it's a donation.
This offer seems to be for the print version.
Well produced content. High quality thoughtful articles and longform content which you do not get these days anymore. Have just subscribed.
People don't seem to understand that thorough, well researched, independent, investigative journalism costs money. How does everyone think we will be getting anything even remotely good without anybody paying for it?
The fourth estate is of vital importance, yet everyone seems to think they are being clever by just reading what social media shows them for free…..
How does everyone think we will be getting anything even remotely good without anybody paying for it?
Ads.
Which comes with major bias.
Why would you produce investigative content on major advertisers or on political parties that help you get what you want (aka Liberal party and Murdoch or Nine News)?
How does everyone think we will be getting anything even remotely good
Define 'good'?
Thomas Jefferson said it best 'the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them'
Try stop reading all media for a month then come back and tell me if you are better or worse off. The result might surprise you.
Ignorance is bliss, hey. Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world only helps to isolate you from the realities outside your bubble. It'll probably make you a little happier to not know about all the bad in the world, but that won't make you "better off" in any sense other than you've run away from reality.
It'll probably make you a little happier to not know about all the bad in the world, but that won't make you "better off"
You think happiness is bad? Interesting theory, tell me more…
@1st-Amendment: I think ignorance is bad. Why would you so blatantly manipulate what I've said? How untrustworthy do you want to look?
Why would you so blatantly manipulate what I've said?
Nothing was manipulated, I quoted your exact words. Not following every tragedy in the entire world does actually make me better off (happier) as you said, I agree with this proposition. The catch is when you said the this won't make me 'better off'. I'm pretty sure it will. Happiness will make me better off than anxiety.
"Happier" is good. "Better off" is good. How can I both be happier and then not 'better off'?How untrustworthy do you want to look?
I don't care about whether you trust me or not, in fact why would you trust anyone in an anonymous internet forum? I prefer logical consistency.
So this raises the question, why so you think that stressing out over endless global tragedies that have no impact to your life makes you better off? How exactly? Can you quantify this?I actually think this is a really important topic. Why are people addicted to bad news? What is there to gain out of it all? The internet has made bad news a 24/7 drug that people are addicted to. How is it helping them? We know mental health issues are escalating at a rapid rate, so you think that maybe, just maybe a constant global news cycle of bad news isn't good for you, it is actually bad?
@1st-Amendment: You selectively isolated a portion of my comment and neglected to include the rest. That is manipulation. You are manipulating its meaning to present the interpretation you wished to publicise. I said ignorance was bad. You said I claimed "happiness is bad". An obvious attempt at manipulation.
You can be happy and not better off because ignorance does not inherently make you better off. Isolating yourself from bad news doesn't stop the bad news happening. Being ignorant of the fact does not make you better off, except for temporarily in the little bubble you're cultivating. You can enjoy that while you're in it, but eventually you'll need to step outside it and you'll find yourself unprepared to understand and respond to what has actually been going on while you've been insulating yourself from the real world.
Unfortunately bad news typically has the most consequences. People remember the bad news of a violent incident where many people are killed and give precedence to that over the "good" news from it that an infant who was on life support has survived. Do you think you'd be getting the full story if you kept up-to-date with the fine weather in Gaza and intentionally ignored the tragedy occurring on the ground? If the military launches a bloody coup in your country, would you prefer to stick to the funny pages because it will make you happier and thus make you "better off"?
Better than I could ever explain it, allow me to make quick reference to this issue from the fine comedy Peep Show.
Nancy [watching the news]: Bad news, bad news, bad news. Jesus, Jeremy, one bus crash. What about all the buses that made it safely to their destinations?
Jeremy: Yeah, this is such bull——.
Mark: Yes, I suppose the news should just be a dispassionate list of all the events that have occurred the world over during the day. That would be good. Except, of course, it would take forever.
You selectively isolated a portion of my comment and neglected to include the rest.
It was all the relevant parts. Which bit specifically did I exclude do you think changes the context?
You can be happy and not better off because ignorance does not inherently make you better off.
Doesn't it? Show your proo, or at least give an example
Isolating yourself from bad news doesn't stop the bad news happening
True. But how does knowing about it make you better off? A million people die a week on average. If I created an app that sent you a notice every time someone somewhere died would you be better off?
Being ignorant of the fact does not make you better off
You are yet to show any proof for this claim. We agree it makes a person happier, and isn't happier better than not happier?
but eventually you'll need to step outside it and you'll find yourself unprepared to understand and respond to what has actually been going on while you've been insulating yourself from the real world.
This does explanation does not match reality though. I travel a fair bit, all over the world, and I've never had a problem dealing with the real world. Perhaps this is just an illusion you have bought in by the people selling you the bad news?
allow me to make quick reference to this issue from the fine comedy Peep Show.
This explains my point exactly. Do you think that a feed of every single event that ever happened would make you better off? Why/Why not?
@1st-Amendment: How about starting with the entire quote. I challenge you to find where I said "happiness is bad".
Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world only helps to isolate you from the realities outside your bubble. It'll probably make you a little happier to not know about all the bad in the world, but that won't make you "better off" in any sense other than you've run away from reality.
As the RMS Titanic began to sink on April 15, 1912, stewards on the ship deliberately withheld information from third-class passengers about the evacuation. This kept passengers calm but ultimately prevented many from being able to access the deck and potentially survive the disaster. These passengers were ignorant of the ship sinking. They were probably happier for not knowing the ship was sinking and they were in mortal danger. But were they better off?
Alternatively, I'm a religious minority in eastern Europe in 1941. I could listen to the rumours about the horrible things happening to people just like me in neighbouring villages, but that would definitely make me sad and unhappy. Am I better off denying these stories, or distancing myself from people who share them, because it will make me happier? Or are my chances of survival greater if I listen, understand and consider ways I can respond to these stories?
I'm afraid your argument lacks clarity. Because people die, and that is sad, we should isolate ourselves from news that people die? And that will make us happier? Because there is lots of tragedy in the world, it is best to isolate ourselves from all tragedy because acknowledging it will make us less happy, and thus we should avoid that?
When two passenger planes flew into the Twin Towers in New York, did you turn the TV off immediately? Did you turn away every time you saw mention of it in the days ahead because the preservation of your bubble of personal safety is more important than your awareness of world events at large? If your mum called you up and said she had cancer, would you immediately hang up on her and try to push it out of your mind because that news made you less happy? Is it better to not know about your dying mum's condition because it will affect you negatively, rather than to acknowledge, educate and deal with it?
How about starting with the entire quote. I challenge you to find where I said "happiness is bad".
Oh ok, just for you… here you go:
"Ignorance is bliss, hey. Cutting yourself off from the rest of the world only helps to isolate you from the realities outside your bubble. It'll probably make you a little happier to not know about all the bad in the world, but that won't make you "better off" in any sense other than you've run away from reality."So let's break it down, the important parts I already covered but I'll do it again:
"It'll probably make you a little happier to not know about all the bad in the world"
So this is saying ignorance makes me happy which I agree.
"but that won't make you "better off" in any sense other than you've run away from reality."
This part say that the happiness I am experiencing "WON'T MAKE ME BETTER OFF" when it clearly will. Logically, happiness is better off than NOT Happiness.
Please explain which part of this you are struggling with.
As the RMS Titanic
I'm not on the Titanic nor can this affect my life in anyway, but let's play the game.
They were probably happier for not knowing the ship was sinking and they were in mortal danger. But were they better off?"
Yes. Because death and ignorance beats death and terror. The anxiety does no good at any point.
Or are my chances of survival greater if I listen, understand and consider ways I can respond to these stories?
You know that the party in charge controlled the newspapers right?
Because there is lots of tragedy in the world, it is best to isolate ourselves from all tragedy
So this is the crux of the matter, how do you decide what is worthy of exposing yourself to and what is worth isolating yourself from? What is the 'appropriate' amount of exposure to events that have no impact to your life?
Just try this experiment, switch off all media for a month and see how it goes. You might find that the sky is not actually falling and you are a happier person. Is happiness something that interests you?
Thomas Jefferson said it best 'the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them'
Jefferson was writing in 1807, when most American "newspapers" were either amateurish scraps or (literally) party newsletters – they were more often vehicles for abuse and insult, than journalistic enterprises in the modern sense. The modern equivalents of Jefferson's targets are the low-effort clickbait and fringe content that are cast about on social media.
when most American "newspapers" were either amateurish scraps or (literally) party newsletters
And you think that has changed because…?
The modern equivalents of Jefferson's targets are the low-effort clickbait and fringe content
So nothing has changed then…
'The media' are just people like you and me with opinions as biased as any other. The illusion that they are some high priests of truth is laughable. I know a few people in the industry, the people you might see on TV every night, and they are just as stupid as the rest of us in real life. Don't think that a a fancy suit and nice haircut makes them immune from bias.
Great deal OP. This deal has been on from time to time. Always a dollar, one of the few things immune from inflation (unless they have reduced the number of pages or quality of paper).
The difference between Soviet media and "freedom and democracy" media will always be is that Soviet media never expected you to pay for propaganda.
Correct, so if you are getting your news for "free", it's not. Somebody else is paying to feed you only the info that they want you to get.
It shows $39.75 per quarter for me
Or get for FREE from your local library via the Libby app.
We've found the Murdoch/Sky/mainstream media parrot who thinks their 'free' news is unbiased.
Tell me who is the 'stupid one'.
You seem like a rational man who gets invited to lots of dinner parties. Not an unhinged radical at all.
With -9 votes on yours and +2 on mine, I think I know who the 'rational man' is.
Back to the cave so you can let the conservative elite tell you how to think.
Wow.. Top of the morning to you too.
Left wing / woke propaganda news. People are so fed with left wing news generally here in Australia and NZ, anything centrist or to the right of these left wing outlets is immeadiately labelled far-right. Can see such intolerance in the comments above.
Care to cite an example of such left wing “propaganda”?
You know they can't back their points up! Why are you being mean to them?
You're clearly part of the deep state far left propaganda group as you haven't just accepted what they've said. :(
You know they can't back their points up!
I just did. Perhaps you should've given it more than an hour before claiming victory?
Care to cite an example of such left wing “propaganda”?
First you'd have to define what 'left wing' is, which is difficult since left and right are relative of each other. eg Trotsky was left of Stalin, Stalin was right of Lenin. all of them are far left of Kennedy. Does that make Kennedy far right or Lenin far left? Who decides what the centre is?
Have a go at defining it and I'll gladly provide examples.
100% agree. All the NewsCorp papers, Nine, Seven, SkyNews are filthy communist communes spewing left wing propoganda.
Do you not see how your comments itself is intolerant?
Lost me once I saw the word 'woke'. Typically used by the uneducated and easily influenced.
Can see such intolerance in the comments above.
You're looking for tolerance? Interesting to see you were quick to upvote @Clambabula directly above you. Honestly mind blowing.
Thanks, for 12 bucks I’ll have a look. Dont mind the guardian online , mostly due to lack of paywalls.
I find the opinion pieces a bit smug so i avoid those and general news is strongly left leaning but decent enough.I guess whats “fair and balanced” reporting is always going to depend on your own beliefs, but it seems impossible to find news that at least acknowledges a counter view.
“ Please allow 1 to 7 days after publication date for your magazine to arrive, depending on national post services.” So I’ll end up reading it online anyway, then have a week old print edition arrive? Not sure this is a deal.
Printed stories are generally different and more in depth with additional context etc. If you read the stories online, you'll likely find it trying the printed copy beneficial.
The content is more in depth and less time critical.
Poo paper
Your eloquent comment explains a lot about your character
Mensa International candidate right here. Clap clap. Your mum must be proud of your educational upbringing.
Most propaganda outlets have the decency to offer their tripe for free rather than charging you for the privilege of being force-fed it.
Communist rag.
Fascist comment.
I got wings
I don't think you understand what communism means.
I bet he/she/it couldn't spell it without help. Well, you wouldn't think so based on the uneducated drivel it's posting.
Probably need to pay me to read that garbage..
In other words, you're paying for the actual garbage that you read…
The fact you have a car as your username and are making this sort of comment is Betoota-advocate-level-meme-worthy.
Broom broom!
Your wit is that limited and you're trying to diss someone else's education level 😂
@Mustang85635: 01010100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100011 01110010 01100101 01100100 01100101 01101110 01110100 01101001 01100001 01101100 01110011 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100001 01100011 01111001 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110100 01111001 01110000 01100101 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01101001 01101110 01100110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01100001 01101100 00100000 01101100 01101111 01100111 01101001 01100011 01100001 01101100 00100000 01100110 01100001 01101100 01101100 01100001 01100011 01111001
@Tafe: 54 68 65 79 20 73 69 6D 70 6C 79 20 61 6E 73 77 65 72 65 64 20 74 68 65 20 71 75 65 73 74 69 6F 6E 20
Is this right wing or satire? Or both?
depressing
People pay money to be lied to?
Yes, Sky News, Murdoch papers etc.
In 1995 he flatly admitted that was his favourite part of the job
“Of all the things in your business empire, what gives you the most pleasure?”
“Being involved with the editor of a paper in a day-to-day campaign,” he answered instantly. “Trying to influence people.”
Obviously, he's a fossil now and he's not involved day-to-day like he was 30 years ago, but his fingerprints are still all over the place
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/02/promises-promi…
You mentioning The Australian is interesting, because that's certainly not a newspaper he publishes because it makes money for him. If News Corp keeps publishing The Oz for reasons that aren't commercial, why exactly do you think they keep producing it?
@1st-Amendment: Yeah, good one Mr Gotcha. If you had bothered to read, I already acknowledged that.
He's remained in executive positions at News Corp ever since then. There's no reason to believe anything changed.
@beltdrive: That's too much text for someone of his/her/it's intellect to understand.
Hence why people of these types don't like proper longform journalism.
How does it work then? Enlighten us.
It always amazes me that when people criticise right wing media it's usually "they said something that's entirely made up", but when it comes to anything on the left there's always someone who comes out with "I heard they're funded by the UN and have replaced one out of every four sausages with ones made out of cis white crickets".
Thank you for promoting the Guardian, keep up the good work.
Hi Peter, how's your day going?
@1st-Amendment: If only a worldly seer, knowledgeable of all the secrets of those in power, would reach out to me with some enigmatic word play and encourage me to join all the dots…
But I don't have the Telegram app on my phone, oh well!