Just noticed NYT was offering me (a previous subscriber who had cancelled after first subscription sale price had ended) a pretty good deal of only $0.50 for 52 weeks.
New York Times Basic Digital Subscription A$2 Every 4 Weeks ($0.50/Week, up to a Year) @ New York Times
652
BlueJay87 on 28/12/2024 - 09:20 nytimes.com (934 clicks)
Last edited 28/12/2024 - 13:21 by 2 other users
Last edited 28/12/2024 - 13:21 by 2 other users
Related Stores
Comments
- 1
- 2
Wow very quick thanks! Updated post link.
Interesting i didn't get the option for that $20/year price or would have selected that. Kind of strange it also shows that price as being reduced from $180 which i believe is way cheaper than i was offered before this sale!
It shows as $6 for 4 weeks for me.
clear cookies, clear cache or open in private/incognito
Did all three before commenting.
Supporting journalists is probably one of the most important things we can do in democracies
Supporting with 50 cents per week?
If it's what they are asking for, why not?
Paying 50c per week to view their paid adverts.
They have regular subscription price
You mean.. supporting propaganda outlets? Journalists are all nothing more than bought mouthpieces for either a govt agenda and/or war manufacturing. True (mainstream) Journalism has died many many years ago.
yes let's rely on Facebook University for our news instead. the war on education is truly a scary thing.
@screengreen17: No. Something called independent journalism that is evidence and science/statistics based and written without bias towards specific sides and presenting hard verified FACTS. Also appreciates arguments from both sides to analysed. You know.. if a conclusion can't be reached yet because it's still developing - then they will state that instead of "It must be xxxx fault ".
Or you prefer to rely on NYT that started the Iraq wars among other areas in the Middle East. Or telling everyone there's no genocide going on in Gaza because they can't go against their overlords on the narration.
the war on education is truly a scary thing.
Go learn how capital letters work before you lecture anyone on 'education' lol…
Good to see you finally tackling the big issues
Well in order to solve big issues you need to demonstrate that you are comfortable with small ones, like primary school level literacy. Since OP failed that there's no point going any further.
all for supporting journalists. don't think they have any at NYT though.
Supporting journalists
… hired as propagandists, you mean?
Real investigative Journalists don't exist on MSM all your supporting is Libtard Propagand clearly you've been on Autopilot for the last 20 years…
Maybe if he didn't do insane things 24/7 it wouldn't happen.
@BeauKilla: He realised that the only good solution is to move the USA further from s*%@hole countries. He wants USA to buy greenland and move the country there and Canada will pay for it.
This much easier that building a wall.
@drhip: @drhip nice straw man. one sensible policy doesn't make up for the 1000 batshit insane things he's done
the 1000 batshit insane things he's done
What are these 'batshit insane things' you think he's done?
I hope it's not just some out-of-context stuff you read in the news then instantly believed, that would be kind of sad and prove OP's point…
Injection, like some sort of cleaning?
So when I said 'I hope it's not just some out-of-context stuff you read in the news then instantly believed' you thought you prove me right?
Thanks!
@1st-Amendment: It’s what he said and it certainly fits into the context of batshit insane. You haven’t been proven right.
- led to the inserruction of the white house.
- injecting bleach to fight covid.
- zero tolerance policy at the border which separated kids from their family.
- withdrawing from paris climate agreement, saying climate change is a "hoax".
- deciding to play neutral and saying there are fine people on both sides when referring to white supremacists.
- refusing to concede lost election in 2020, calling raffensperger to "find 11,000" more votes to fraudulently overturn election in Georgia.
@1st-Amendment listen to his rallies to find the other 994, but those I've listed are enough to not get elected.
@screengreen17: So when I said 'I hope it's not just some out-of-context stuff you read in the news then instantly believed' you thought you prove me right?
Thanks!
@1st-Amendment: @1st-Amendment handy for everything bad thing he's done to be "out of context stuff I read in the news" huh
handy for everything bad thing he's done to be "out of context stuff I read in the news" huh
Well you are yet to provide a single independent citation of any of your claims…
@1st-Amendment: All those points were pretty broadly reported. Do you have some sort of contrary evidence?
You haven't watched X, Fox or Sky have you? Almost any news outlet owned by a billionaire was pro Trump because he's good for big business.
His policies to "help the people" have been demonstrated to be either wholly unworkable, would not have the intended effect, or straight up worse. You can see it now in the interviews where he is back tracking on the ability to deliver anything he promised and has only delivering on the promise to help his own business supporters.
Tariffs? Yeah that thing 100 years ago that led to the great depression. Using a 200 year old immigration law? Great, that led to innocent people being imprisoned. It's just populist policies that I dare him to implement, I want all his policies implemented so we can watch the US people see what really happens with short sighted policies.
Billion dollar projects get instant development approval regardless of EPA concerns? Great! Going to be the world's problem later in 20 years after his goons have made billions. Can't wait!
Yep, (profanity) authoritarian populism.
I’m siding with China until the US gets its shit together and proves it’s not an autocracy like China.@FujinShu: US is a little bit sht so instead I'm going to support peak sht autocracy China… makes sense.
@tenpercent: I kinda have to take Trump at his word, because he's got some slightly incompetent but overwhelmingly loyal people that put him above the constitution, and if he asks them to flip the US into an autocratic state, with maximum human rights abuses all for the pursuit of capital, by any means necessary, they will bend over and move mountains to ensure their boss is happy.
The US and China are both autocratic, but the US can END THE WORLD if it REALLY wants to. China doesn't have the firepower to match the US and counter it.
At this point, unless the US can get back to being a faux-democracy with the election of a NOT TRUMP president, both are autocrats and I'm siding with the less-powerful autocrat until one of them becomes more democratic.
But I will always put Russia at the bottom unless there is another revolution (there won't be).I kinda have to take Trump at his word, because…
…Because you're emotionally fragile and easily offended?
Here's a tip, switch off the media and come back in 4 years and see if all the media lies lived up to reality. If 2016 to 2020 is anything to go by, all you will miss in 1460 straight days of 'Orange Man Bad', 'OMG iT's ThE eNd Of ThE wOrLd!!!" while the world carries on quite normally.
US is a little bit sht so instead I'm going to support peak sht autocracy China… makes sense.
This is the level of retard that TDS takes you to :)
That all might be true, but I'm aspiring to be a billionaire. Currently I'm roughly $1billion - $100 short of my goal, but that doesn't stop me being an aspirational voter.
Almost any news outlet owned by a billionaire was pro Trump because he's good for big business.
Like NYT, Washington Post, Comcast, Warner Bros etc etc? All the largest media orgs are Anti-Trump. Only Fox wasn't. That's one out of an entire industry.
Your claim does not stack up to the evidence.His policies to "help the people" have been demonstrated to be either wholly unworkable
Yet we had four years of these 'unworkable' policies and things were pretty good. Lowest unemployment, low inflation, low illegal immigration, no silly new wars. Which part of that was 'unworkable' to you?
Tariffs? Yeah that thing 100 years ago that led to the great depression
Lol…
Using a 200 year old immigration law?
Lol…
TDS is real… Seek help… Start by turning off the propaganda machine that is feeding you lies…
@1st-Amendment: 1st-Amendment I wonder where you get your news from. please list them, I'm just curious.
I wonder where you get your news from
I go outside and when I look up the sky isn't falling. Then when someone tells that the news told them that sky is falling I know that they have been lied to yet again.
please list them
I don't watch any news. This is why my head is not filled with imaginary dragons like the poster above. Orange Man Bad etc…
Thomas Jefferson said it best: 'The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; in as much as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors.'I'm just curious.
Curiosity is one of the greatest traits a person can possess, the trick is to ensure you apply it equally even to your own ideas.
@1st-Amendment: so you've got absolutely no idea what is happening in the world, and orange bad man has found his way into your psyche somehow. says all there is to say really.
so you've got absolutely no idea what is happening in the world
Read Jefferson's quote again, then tell me how smart you are…
orange bad man has found his way into your psyche somehow
Not 'somehow', talking to people isn't magic, it's how the whole world worked up until about 15 years ago. You should try it sometime…
@1st-Amendment: @1st-Amendment ah yes very handy that everyone who opposes your views is someone that can be surmised with a quote from a slave owner. i'd much rather get my news online than bogan university tyvm :)
ah yes very handy that everyone who opposes your views is someone that can be surmised with a quote from a slave owner.
Lol, I'm sorry I overestimated you ability to interact like a regular human…
When you said you were curious, you weren't really, you just needed to have a rant about how bad orange man is because the media told you so.
i'd much rather get my news online
Good luck waving your fists at the TV for the rest of your life…
@1st-Amendment: @1st-Amendment why do I need to be told that orange bad man is bad? he does that perfectly fine without anyone to to the explaining.
"they're eating the dogs…"
"i have a concept of a plan…"
…or anytime he approached the topic of science during the pandemic…like i said, you have this idea that anyone who opposes your view is getting processed information from the media. i'm telling you that i don't need it to be fed to me. i don't see how any of the examples i have provided in this thread can be defended in any way. you've not even tried it besides giving me some polemics about how the mainstream media is wrong and only the Trumpets are the bastions of the truth.
he does that perfectly fine without anyone to to the explaining
You've already demonstrated that your source of all of this info is out-of-context quotes from lying media. Come back when you can provide something other than that.
you have this idea that anyone who opposes your view is getting processed information from the media
You are yet to provide a citation. You read out-of context media headlines then repeat it, exactly like I said. That is the only reasonable conclusion anyone could make based on what YOU have provided so far.
i don't see how
And this the exact problem. YOU can't see because YOU refuse to to look further than clickbait headlines
Let me use one of YOUR fake news examples to show you the clown show that you are buying into:
saying there are fine people on both sides when referring to white supremacists
Here's the quote:
"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides…
…and I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis, or the White Nationalists, because they should be condemned totally… But you had many people in that group (the Right) OTHER THAN Neo-Nazis, or the White Nationalists, and the press had treated them absolutely unfairly. In the other group (The Left) also you had some fine people but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and the helmets, the baseball bats, you got a lot bad people in the other group."
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bsSo all Trump was saying that at the rally, both sides had good people and both sides had some troublemakers, but the press made outright lied to make it sound like Trump was endorsing White Supremecists even though explicitly denounced them. And here you are 7 YEARS LATER still repeating that lie.
Rinse repeat this for the last 8 years and you have a biased media taking everything out of context to paint a false narrative, And suckers buy into it.
This is how I know you get your info from lying media, because you are repeating those lies even though they have been debunked numerous times over the last 7 years.
This was even debunked on Snopes even though they are a liberal outlet, that how bad the lies are, even lefties admit that it was a lie, but you sticking with it because the man on TV told you what to believe?
giving me some polemics about how the mainstream media is wrong and only the Trumpets are the bastions of the truth.
I never said that. You see how you're playing the game of twisting words?
All I said was to stop subjecting yourself to constant lies and see how your world view changes. You said you were curious in another post. Curiosity requires that you are prepared to entertain ideas that you don't necessarily agree with, or challenge your own ideas to test if they are valid. In this case I have provided video evidence that you were lied to. Do you still believe the lies now, or do you trust your own eyes and ears over what some man on TV is telling you to think?You've already demonstrated that your source of all of this info is out-of-context quotes from lying media. Come back when you can provide something other than that.
his ramblings are braindead no matter how much context you provide. he said those words. CNN didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to say it. you keep saying the media is lying to me…i have ears and know the ramblings of a lunatic when sounds come out of his mouth.
You are yet to provide a citation. You read out-of context media headlines then repeat it, exactly like I said. That is the only reasonable conclusion anyone could make based on what YOU have provided so far.
refer to above. also please stop projecting your media illiteracy onto me. you're telling me that you get your news from your bogan mates the next farm over and i'm the uneducated one?
Trump's statement "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides—on many sides." - implying equivalence between white supremacists and counter protestors. he took a few days to denounce these statements because he was worried about pissing off his voters, some of which are Neo Nazis and white supremacists. if Trump's comments were so clear, why did he have to back track and clarify his sentiments after a few days after Republicans like Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, John McCain & John Kasich called him out for it? the guardian article below linking to tweets:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/15/donald-trump…
curiousity is important but all you're doing is replacing one narrative with another. you accuse me of believing lies the media pushes, but aren't you doing the same with the sources that you trust? i’m open to questioning my views, but are you willing to do the same with yours? or is questioning only allowed when it challenges me and not you?
his ramblings are braindead no matter how much context you provide
So context doesn't matter you, exactly like I said…
implying equivalence
No, The Guardian invented a false equivalence to promote an narrative as part of the Orange Man Bad psychosis.
His words are there in black and white "'I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis, or the White Nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"the guardian article below
The Guardian lol. So media headlines then, exactly like I said…
but aren't you doing the same with the sources that you trust
I specifically said I don't read the news. I heard people talking about this when it happened, so I went and watched a copy of the unedited video without the media lies clouding the facts and the claims didn't stack up at all. It's quite simple.
Now I have provided you the full speech without the narrative and it entirely negates the lies you repeated. Do you still take the word of the media over a video of the actual speech? That would be next level crazy if you still hold on the lie after it has been debunked.
i’m open to questioning my views, but are you willing to do the same with yours?
Always. Tell me which part of 'I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis, or the White Nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" Did you think means 'White Nationalists are fine people'?
Propaganda only works if you keep exposing yourself to it. If you switch it off and suddenly all the bogeymen go away, the it probably means you've been had.
@1st-Amendment: ah yes. two groups protest against each other. one group has nazis and white supremacists. the other are counter protesting. the group with the nazis has a far-right white supremacist drive into a crowd, killing 1 and injuring others.
that definitely is the perfect time to come out and say "fine people on both sides"…perfect way to calm the situation down isn't it. a president with absolutely no EQ is what you want.
that definitely is the perfect time to come out and say "fine people on both sides"
Only if you take that out of context, which you continue to do despite now having the full context. It's almost like you prefer being angry to knowing the truth.
that definitely is the perfect time to…
Ok so you now accept that Trump never said White Supremacists are fine people?
Quote: 'saying there are fine people on both sides when referring to white supremacists' https://www.ozbargain.com.au/comment/16111167/redir
Do you now accept that he never said that White Supremacists are fine people? Not only did he not say it, he specifically said in the very same speech that they should be condemned totally. Yet the media lied to you and told the opposite of what he said, but you take their lies over the words in the actual speech because it fed the Orange Man Bad narrative and the algorithm demands that you stay angry.
That would be next level brainwashing to continue to believe the lie even after being shown the truth…
Stay angry, the algorithm demands it!
I don’t get why there are people like this outside of the US.
I suppose a few of the most vulnerable Australian folk that hang around on the worst social media sites must get spill-over manipulations from the MAGA nutjobs and their Russian bots, but it still seems like there’s too many aussies falling for the crazy
I think you can still read just the headlines for free.
"News websites hate this one simple trick how to get around paid subscriptions"
Yeah headlines are normally deceptive: eg https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/sunil-gavaskar-blasts-sam-ko…
If you only read the headline, you might have thought Gavaskar was criticising Konstas for the shoulder bump with Virat Kohli, but this article is about something completely different
As if industry prizes themselves — Oscars, Golden Globe, Pulitzer, etc — weren't part and parcel of establishment propaganda too 🙄
I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never read any Pulitzer winning articles. The prize for investigative reporting that the NYT won this year was brilliant reporting about child labour in the US. Last year, Murdoch's Wall St Journal also won with brilliant reporting about corruption among public officials at various federal agencies in the US.
Newspapers, left and right leaning, are guilty of putting out a lot of clickbait trash for revenue these days (as are many "independent" journalists/blogs). They need to try keep up with the 24 hour news cycle and the tiktok twitter generation, where seemingly no-one has any attention span anymore.
It sucks, but that doesn't discount that there is still amazing reporting going on at these newspapers. It's just a shame very few read them because they don't have the attention span. Despite these stories coming out, nothing happens because the masses are focused on what the tech billionaires are forcing down their throats.
nothing happens because the masses are focused on what the tech billionaires are forcing down their throats.
Is that the NYT told you think lol…
There's one thing I'll agree on: cancelling the subscription is exponentially harder than buying it. Takes a phone call (!) to the States in their time zone.
I don't agree with all of their editorial content, but the publication's international reputation comes from its quality.
Earlier this year, I was able to cancel online (it then offered me another year at the same price).
This post just reminded me to cancel my subscription - could do it online easily and retain access until end of paid up period.
the publication's international reputation comes from its quality.
Nah, comes from being a mouthpiece for the establishment.
Wouldn't $20 a year be the better deal? Recently renewed this solely for The Athletic.
Yeah i strangely didn't get this option though
I might do the same as im looking for deal for Athletic as well.. why not get rest of news and support journos at it.
Worth it for the crosswords.
And the WordleBot analysis. 👍
If you want to pay to get brainwashed by American mainstream media and CIA propaganda, then yeah go ahead.
I would rather send that donation to your local community.
Go on. Make mine out to the Human Fund.
Interesting how people would upvote the deal, downvote the voices calling out NYT as a propaganda channel when they were key to instrumenting pretty much all of the wars that the US has pushed for in the last five decades in manufacturing consent among what people call themselves as centre left leaning.
US / Aus political spectrum:
left(actual)—centre—left(perceived)—centre left—right
That doesn't seem correct. In the US the 2 parties seem to both be moving further away from the centre.
In Australia, both major parties seem to just always hover ever so slightly either side of centre.
Fortunately, we seem to be moving in Europe's direction, away from the 2 party system. Hopefully nothing but minority governments from here on.
Correct. Plenty have either forgotten or miseducated that NYT was instrumental in swaying public opinion to invade Afghanistan, Syra, and Iraq. Several went on to The Atlantic and we know how this turned out. NYT then absolved itself in 2022 by claiming its journalistic misintegrity were "isolated incidents."
Not even 0 cent to propagandist media. Even their own homegrown whistleblower did not trust the NYT.
https://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/319233332/new-york-times-edit…
and this is what Australian media have done to their own homegrown whistleblower
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/m…Paying to be propagandized..
It's really difficult to end a subscription. Just keep that in mind.
Not true. I just subscribed for a year for $20 and cancelled straight away, and received confirmation via email my subscription has been cancelled and that I will loss access in the 28th of December 2025
Sounds like it's easier than when I last cancelled. I've already commented above, so I'll stop here.
I had no problems last time
Worth less than the paper it’s written on.. or website hosted on.
I guess my criticism of the NYT relates to their reluctance to use the words "genocide" ,"ethnic cleansing", "occupied territory" and "Palestine" .
Does this include the crosswords?
Seems a pretty good deal for that alone!
- 1
- 2
https://ibb.co/yyYVw2F posting link to how the deal now appears in my account