• expired

50% Off All-Access Digital Annual Subscription: $100 (Normally $200) @ The Guardian

14313
50% Off All-Access Digital Annual Subscription: $100 (Normally $200) @ The Guardian
Go to Deal
humptydumpty on 31/12/2024 - 19:15 support.theguardian.com (658 clicks)
Last edited 01/01/2025 - 09:56 by 1 other user

Got this in my email today:

Time is running out to claim this rare opportunity to save 50% on an annual all-access Guardian subscription.

Subscribe before midnight on December 31 and enjoy a $100 saving.

  • Unlimited, unmetered access to the Guardian app
  • Ad-free reading on all your devices
  • Exclusive newsletter for supporters, sent every week from the Guardian newsroom
  • Far fewer asks for support
  • Unlimited access to the Guardian's new cooking app, Feast

Hopefully the link will work as is (I stripped the non-essential parts from it).

Update: I've removed the expiry because the offer is still available (at 6:40 am, 1 Jan 2025).

Books & Magazines Newspaper Subscription

Related Stores

The Guardian
The Guardian

Comments

    • arcticmonkey on 31/12/2024 - 19:32
      -6

      Very original.

      Just another parrot.

      • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 20:01
        -5

        There's a reason they shut comments off all their articles, protect the narrative.
        Open conversation isn't required, everything in this publication is factual therefore doesn't require challenging.. so they'd lead their disciples to believe.

        • get-innocuous on 31/12/2024 - 20:02
          +69

          Maybe they just recognise that not all internet discourse is valuable 😉

          • trentgibbo on 31/12/2024 - 20:04
            +21

            @get-innocuous: How dare you! The pearl clutching mob from the courier mail screaming in the comments could be considered valuable by some.

            • team teri on 31/12/2024 - 20:22
              +8

              @FXx: You might want to check your 'facts', in fact, the number of users of 'X' is dwindling. Not many places on the Internet with negative growth.

              • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 20:35
                +6

                @team teri: Several sources reporting more people are now getting news from 'X', even if a lot of progressives left the platform.

              • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:35

                @team teri: MySpace….

              • Daabido on 31/12/2024 - 20:41
                +7

                @team teri: That's blue sky thinking.

                • team teri on 31/12/2024 - 20:46
                  +7

                  @Daabido: Since you mention it, here's an interesting factoid Google unearthed:
                  "Bluesky boasts roughly 20 million users, which amounts to less than 10% of the 229 million daily active users disclosed by Twitter in a June 2022 earnings report. X's user data is no longer publicly available since Musk took the company private."

                  So Musk does not want us to know how X is doing? Everything can be spoken about freely, only not his location (didn't he sue someone), or his lack of success in some endeavours. ;-)

                  • 1st-Amendment on 01/01/2025 - 15:14
                    +3

                    @team teri:

                    Everything can be spoken about freely

                    You are confused.

                    Free speech means that you have the right to speak freely without fear of government persecution, It doesn't mean that you get to demand that I tell you things that you want to hear. Here's the actual text to help you out:

                    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

                    There's nothing in there that says I can force you say things that I demand. Not sure why this is always such a struggle for some people to understand.

              • Binchicken22 on 31/12/2024 - 23:06
                -6

                @team teri: False. Stop spreading misinformation.

                "In 2025, the number of X (Twitter) users worldwide is expected to reach 440.2 million, a 2.6% annual increase from 2024. X crossed the 400 million user mark for the first time in 2023, with 415.3 million users."

                • Binchicken22 on 01/01/2025 - 16:32

                  @Binchicken22: Kinda crazy how even when you point out how left wing propogandists are spreading misinformation… It STILL gets downvoted, it's like if something goes against what they want to believe, it's automatically false to them, no fact what the actual facts are.

            • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 20:25
              +19

              @FXx:

              There's a reason people are moving to platforms like 'X' in droves

              You mean the site actively banning anyone who criticises Musk?

              https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/elon-musk-s-x-now-suspend…

              https://observer.com/2022/12/elon-musk-suspend-twitter-accou…

              • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 20:36
                +7

                @lelamo: Go look at any of Musk's posts right now, all have hundreds of people criticising him.

                • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 20:39
                  +17

                  @FXx: You said censorship doesn't happen on Twitter. I just pointed out that it in fact does happen.

                  Elon even censored the entire country of Turkey from using the platform.

                  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/twitter-musk-censors…

                  If you care about censorship so much, why do you lick Elon's boots?

                  https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-05-24/under-el…

                  Under Elon Musk, Twitter has approved 83% of censorship requests by authoritarian governments

                  Great platform, eh?

                  • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 21:02
                    -4

                    @lelamo: When did I say censorship doesn't happen on Twiiter?

                    I see you're consistent with your lefty publication reference there. You don't like balanced discussion, clearly. I get it.

                    • cheaptech20 on 01/01/2025 - 09:26
                      +1

                      @FXx: Let me guess, you support Gina Ri… I mean Duttons Coal… I mean nuclear plan?

            • arcticmonkey on 31/12/2024 - 20:58
              -1

              @FXx: BS. Musk forces his extreme right spew to all.

            • Shaun Prawn on 31/12/2024 - 21:06
              +2

              @FXx: This is definitely true. How many of the major news sites still have a comments section for their articles? I can only think of Sky News to be honest.

            • no fruitz on 31/12/2024 - 21:18
              +1

              @FXx: Examples of disinformation?

        • scrappydoo on 31/12/2024 - 21:06
          -6

          Indeed. This publication lacks integrity and can hardly be considered a bargain

        • Gorby on 31/12/2024 - 21:40
          +3

          The reason is defamation liability for other people's comments.

        • Shaun Prawn on 31/12/2024 - 22:28
          -1

          Your neg has been removed, and I assume the others will also be removed. If ozbargain demographic is any indication of the general population, I really think we are doomed for the coming decades.

          So many people trying to silence yourself and others with similar opinions. But when I read your comments and other like yourself, there is logic and reason behind what you are saying… In contrast to the response of 'team teri' to 'niknikniknik's comments further below, it is just utter crap… He is making fabricated lies about his original comment, yet he gets a ton of people voting in support…

          I hate to admit defeat. But I believe we are in serious trouble for the future of Australia. Mostly economically, but also politically and morally.

          • Gorby on 31/12/2024 - 22:45
            +5

            @Shaun Prawn: Melodrama much?

            • Shaun Prawn on 31/12/2024 - 23:52
              -4

              @Gorby: I might be a bit pessimistic, but it's really not looking good at the moment..

              Curious… Are you mortgage free??

            • Shaun Prawn on 01/01/2025 - 03:40
              +4

              @Gorby: niknikniknik:

              "Reading the guardian certainly isn't better than something you'd find on a random twitter feed. This is essentially a paid left wing ideology subscription."

              This comment has NEGATIVE 7 votes.

              Response to that comment from niknikniknik….

              team teri:

              "It's kind of funny how all the free speech warriors want to shut down any reporting they see as being further left than them.

              Now here's a challenge to you. Can you link to any news article published by the Guardian that contains factual inaccuracies?

              Or do you just object to being confronted over and over by inconvenient truths that, if you were to give them space in your brain to actually consider their merit, might make you feel like someone who's part of the problem?"

              This comment had POSITIVE 20 votes atm

              Look closely at those 2 comments. Were any of the responses to the original comment related? No…

              Yet look at the relative ignorance based on votes…

              Like I said…. If ozbargain demographic is somewhat indicative of the general population, we have some really crappy times ahead of us….

              • Shaun Prawn on 01/01/2025 - 03:47
                +4

                @Shaun Prawn: By contrast, the response to that addresses every comment perfectly. No fabrication at all:

                @team teri:

                I didn't suggest they're adding things that are factually wrong, I said they're left wing - meaning they're presenting only partial facts which support their narrative by applying signficant bias and spin.

                Didn't ask for the guardian to be banned or silenced, just scoffing at the notion of paying for it. Wouldn't pay for heavy right wing media either.

                There isn't much merit to consider frankly. Given the number of assumptions you chose to latch onto during your reply, I'm not surprised you enjoy the guardian

            • Shaun Prawn on 01/01/2025 - 04:11
              +6

              @Gorby: If you are mortgage free and don't really have any financial issues at the moment, you are probably not affected.

              But right now, what I am seeing is an absolute failure of governments, state wide, nation wide and internationally. All for the sake of certain ideologies (environmental, immigration, multiculturalism, etc….)

              They just want to "look good" in the public eye/social media etc. But it is failing most of us. The economy in Australia is completely up the shit. We will have 2 standards of living like 3rd world countries.

              For example: my wife works in child care getting nowhere near what she should be earning for the workload and the responsibility required. Definitely not enough to pay rent, bills etc if she was single.

              I honestly think, I work half as much as my wife but I earn twice as much as her. It is ridiculous. This is due to globalisation and nothing else.

              People did not want to do that job for the low pay, but migrants are willing to do it for less than it is worth. Now the industry is completely destroyed.

              Employees get paid not enough, while those on top are raping the industry. It is really bad.

              This is one example.. And I could list many more.

              You probably don't realise it in your situation. But the future for Australia is bad.

              We are not the lucky country that we once were. And if you are in a bubble where it does not impact you, then good for you. But don't try shut others does who are affected by this.

              • cheaptech20 on 01/01/2025 - 09:32
                +1

                @Shaun Prawn: The future is bad because successive liberal governments have ruined it. Capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing have ruined the housing market for buyers over the past 25 years.
                Resources mined were not taxed appropriately to pay for our nations infrastructure.
                A carbon tax WOULD HAVE strengthened and created new industries in Australia, instead we have Aussie uni graduates leading the biggest solar companies in the world… in China.
                Shorten not becoming PM meant Albo came in ultra conservative so now both sides are useless, but I'd take a 6/10 Albo over a 1/10 Dutto.

                • 1st-Amendment on 01/01/2025 - 15:39
                  +1

                  @cheaptech20:

                  The future is bad because successive liberal governments have ruined it.

                  Red team good! Blue team bad! You're the perfect little pawn…

                  Capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing have ruined the housing market for buyers over the past 25 years.

                  Not the artificially constrained lack of supply created by successive Liberal and Labor governments? You don't think that supply and demand played a part? You know Economics 101?

                  Resources mined were not taxed.. A carbon tax…

                  More taxes mean things cost more to create, build, transport, sell etc. Feel free to explain that helps people with less money. How does that help you remain internationally competitive by driving up the cost of local goods and services? Go on, I'd love to hear the cartoon logic behind this… This is the same logic that bankrupted every Communist country in the world, but sure we should replicate that here because… reasons…
                  Somewhere there is a clown car missing its political ideology…

                  in China.

                  You are free to move there. Why aren't you doing that?

                  • cheaptech20 on 02/01/2025 - 08:02

                    @1st-Amendment: I'm not red or blue team. I analyse the facts at hand. For example, under Malcolm Turnbull there was a shred of decency in policy direction, but that all deteriorated under Abbott/Scomo/Dutton.

                    I have an economics qualification and I am well aware of the fact that Howard's changes increased demand from investors, distorting the supply availability for home buyers. If you think it's just a supply problem you've been blinded by the developer lobby too long. So maybe you need to go back to school to learn your ABCs of economics.

                    On the mining tax, it is apparent you have no understanding of economics other than ideological arguments about communism and capitalism. But if that peanut brain can understand, that some of the most prosperous economies in the world tax heavily the extraction of the natural resources. Look at the Scandinavian countries that have amazing equality they have.

                    I don't expect any understand any of this. I DID NOT SPEAK SLOWWWWLY ENOUGH.

                    • 1st-Amendment on 02/01/2025 - 10:27
                      -1

                      @cheaptech20:

                      I have an economics qualification

                      Which one? Did it come out of a packet of cornflakes?

                      If you think it's just a supply problem you've been blinded by the developer lobby too long

                      Great counter-argument. A variation of the 'anyone who disagrees with me is Hitler' logic…

                      If you spent more than 3 days doing an 'economics qualification' then you would know that market prices can be boiled down to supply and demand. The current housing issues are quite obviously caused by supply not keeping up with demand hence driving up prices. Population is increasing, ie demand going up, but supply is not keeping up with demand, so prices are being driven up. This is literally the very first lesson you learn in Economics. Demand up or Supply down drives prices up. Supply up or Demand down drives prices down.

                      If supply wasn't a constrained then every one would have a house and prices would be lower. Feel free to explain why this isn't true using something other than '…tHe LiBeRaL gOvErNmEnT….'

                      Now ask yourself what is stopping more homes being built to increase supply (or immigration being reduced to slow demand) and you will find that it's the not a free market preventing it, it's government over-regulation (both sides) heavily constraining new builds to keep up with market demand. But your solution to this is more government regulation? Truly bizarre logic…

                      • cheaptech20 on 02/01/2025 - 11:55

                        @1st-Amendment: You're just dead wrong on the housing argument. I own 2 investment properties purely for negative gearing purposes. Would I own them if there were no lucrative policies in place? Hell no.
                        I'm one of the few who individually/ financially benefit greatly from the liberals. But I care more about the country overall than the growth of my investment portfolio.
                        If they grandfather in the current policies for 5yrs then say from then on zero negative gearing, you watch the collapse of housing prices and subsequent affordability.

                      • cheaptech20 on 02/01/2025 - 12:04

                        @1st-Amendment: I acknowledge supply is a problem, but also decades of both sides have meant our home building industry is shockingly inefficient and shonky. So "loosening" some of that regulation might get houses up faster, but also will create new problems with rectification works. So no easy answers there. Then immigration is what keeps our country moving in terms of GDP growth - and many businesses depend on it (which is why Dutton has rolled back his stance from earlier). So that's not an option to reduce demand either.

                        But there is an easy option that does not affect those groups - but will affect investors.

                        I still can't fathom how you can't understand some of this. But then you said you got your qualifications from a cereal box, didn't know they came from there until you said yours did! Go figure!

                      • SBOB on 02/01/2025 - 12:11

                        @1st-Amendment:

                        If you spent more than 3 days doing an 'economics qualification' then you would know that market prices can be boiled down to supply and demand

                        Do those 3 days also cover any external influences on either side that might add to the 'complexity' of a simple 'free market' supply/demand analysis?
                        Eg "pro" incentives for investment such as tax incentives that might provide a manipulative force on the demand side ?

              • Gorby on 01/01/2025 - 10:28
                +1

                @Shaun Prawn: Why are you still here? Get stuffed with your assumptions, touch grass man.
                If you don't want to pay for this news source with a discount, just don't and move on, that's what we're here for.

          • chuie on 01/01/2025 - 08:29
            +1

            @Shaun Prawn: You getting neg and disagreement isn't the end of the world. It's people disagreeing with you.

            Is it because we're all "woke" people who all read the Guardian who don't understand the real world? Given this is fundamentally a bargain website and not Reddit/political website, it probably says something about your views which are out of kilter with the average Australian. Just look at the sheer effort you've put to criticising this post about a sale of a news subscription.

            I'd suggest also learning about market economics and philosophy, which based on what you've said, appears to have fundamental gaps.

            For what it's worth, I don't like the Guardian.

            • 1st-Amendment on 01/01/2025 - 15:31
              +1

              @chuie:

              it probably says something about your views which are out of kilter with the average Australian

              Please post you survey results. I'd love to know what they found…

              I'd suggest also learning about market economics and philosophy, which based on what you've said, appears to have fundamental gaps.

              And what do you think those are specifically? I read the thread, I didn't see any obvious gaps in 'economics' or 'philosophy'? Mr Prawn seemed to be calling out that the Australia is running a two speed economy which is quite obviously true. If you are doing alright then things are good, but that isn't true for everyone. Try asking anyone trying to buy their first home. It's tough out there for some people. Which part of that did you think failed your economic of philosophical test, I'm curious to know.

        • Shaun Prawn on 01/01/2025 - 11:40

          My neg has been removed also.

          • Gorby on 01/01/2025 - 12:04

            @Shaun Prawn: Probably because your neg was functionally equivalent to "why is there a discount for beer on here, I like wine, and everybody else should only like discounts on wine"

        • burns13 on 01/01/2025 - 16:26

          I can understand media shutting off comments. There are too many political cookers around spamming comment sections with low grade junk.

          Most people with brains can see nothing of value is lost.

          • 1st-Amendment on 02/01/2025 - 10:30
            -1

            @burns13:

            Most people with brains can see nothing of value is lost.

            Person comments about how smart they are recognising that comments sections are low value by commenting in commenting section…

            True FIGJAM moment there..

            • burns13 on 02/01/2025 - 14:08
              +1

              @1st-Amendment: Not all comment sections are the same, not all commenters are the same either. keyboard warrior are killing comment sections all over the internet. Go outside and win your stripes in real life, not by slinging mud over the internet

    • Shaun Prawn on 01/01/2025 - 07:58
      -4

      Sorry guys, I want to hijack the first comment and repost something I posted further down just so some more people can read it and hopefully understand:

      If you are mortgage free and don't really have any financial issues at the moment, you are probably not affected.

      But right now, what I am seeing is an absolute failure of governments, state wide, nation wide and internationally. All for the sake of certain ideologies (environmental, immigration, multiculturalism, etc….)

      They just want to "look good" in the public eye/social media etc. But it is failing most of us. The economy in Australia is completely up the shit. We will have 2 standards of living like 3rd world countries.

      For example: my wife works in child care getting nowhere near what she should be earning for the workload and the responsibility required. Definitely not enough to pay rent, bills etc if she was single.

      I honestly think, I work half as much as my wife but I earn twice as much as her. It is ridiculous. This is due to globalisation and nothing else.

      People did not want to do that job for the low pay, but migrants are willing to do it for less than it is worth. Now the industry is completely destroyed.

      Employees get paid not enough, while those on top are raping the industry. It is really bad.

      This is one example.. And I could list many more.

      You probably don't realise it in your situation. But the future for Australia is bad.

      We are not the lucky country that we once were. And if you are in a bubble where it does not impact you, then good for you. But don't try shut others does who are affected by this.

      • BigBirdy on 01/01/2025 - 10:20
        +9

        We have record low unemployment, your wife needs a govt supporting ideology like unionism, equal pay for women, better pay in ‘women jobs’, greater childcare subsidies, etc. ie left-wing lol

        • Gorby on 01/01/2025 - 10:33
          +5

          Yeah imagine thinking the Coalition was going to fix the undervaluing of childcare workers.
          It's pretty clear from all these essays that old mate overleveraged himself at the bottom of the rate cycle and pins that regret on Albo. And he wants all of Ozbargain land to hear it.

          • nugstar on 01/01/2025 - 11:37
            +1

            @Gorby: It's directly in Dutton's interest to undervalue childcare workers as it increases the profitability of the childcare centres in his family's trust. He's extracting wealth at the expense of childcare workers.

      • team teri on 01/01/2025 - 10:32
        +2

        Since it's so important to you that you repeated it, let me just reply to a couple of things:

        For example: my wife works in child care getting nowhere near what she should be earning for the workload and the responsibility required.
        […]
        This is due to globalisation and nothing else.

        Globalisation is something that would have happened anyway to some degree, but if you look back at which political parties actively pushed for it and accelerated it, you'll find that it was the neo-liberals around the world. Our Libs in cahoots with the Tories in the UK and the GOP in the US. Parties further to the left on the political spectrum were very much for protecting local workers.

        Then look at which party in this country increased access to childcare (and therefore the number of jobs in that workforce and pay conditions), consistently over the decades, every time they are in office. That would have be Labor.

        Now reconcile that with your apparent hate for anything politically left of Musk & Trump. If you take a step back you will see that your anger has been hijacked by people exploiting it for their own gain. They say things that resonate with you (and maybe your wife), but won't do a damn thing that makes her lot a better one.

        The one major mistake Albo makes in this area of disinformation is that he doesn't lie as blatantly as the other side. Makes him look weak and ineffective, while the opposition just offers plenty of hot air, and never gets challenged by Murdoch dominated media.

        No, not everything is going swimmingly in this country. And perhaps we really are f***ed. But not for the reasons you were made to believe.

        • 1st-Amendment on 01/01/2025 - 16:11

          you'll find that it was the neo-liberals around the world. Our Libs in cahoots with the Tories in the UK and the GOP in the US. Parties further to the left on the political spectrum were very much for protecting local workers.

          Bro what drugs are you on?
          Clinton brought in the US-China Relations Act in 2000 which gave China special trade status which created the rout of US manufacturing to China. https://www.policymagazine.ca/the-tragic-legacy-of-bill-clin…
          When Obama was asked about all the lost jobs he literally just made the weak excuse that 'those jobs are not coming back' and made zero effort to protect local workers. https://youtu.be/CKpso3vhZtw?t=170
          This is one of the many reasons the Dems lost in 2016. Dems turned their backs on blue collar workers and the GOP under Trump happily swooped in and grabbed them all. Obama said the jobs aren't coming back and how is Trump going to do that, then Trump did exactly that showing how weak a leader Obama truly was.
          In 2024, people had learned the hard way that a guy who says mean things but runs a good economy to protect local workers is a better choice than a Globalist who cares more about illegal immigrants and foreign wars than his/her own people.
          The idea that Globalisation and Open Borders is a conservative ideology is the most batshit crazy thing I've heard all day. Maybe back in the 1930's but ever since the 1990's it has been the WEF/Soros/Left Wing pushing this failed idea.

          If you take a step back you will see that your anger has been hijacked by people exploiting it for their own gain.

          You might want to take some of your own advice. Orange Man Bad etc…

          There is a consistent pattern (not always but more often than not) of job growth and lower taxes and interest rates under Conservative governments, and higher unemployment, higher taxes and Interest rates under liberal governments (lower case L). There no magic here. It's because Conservatives tend to prioritise economic growth which helps everyone. Liberals (lower case L - ie Labor) tend to prioritise welfare for special interests which usually stunts the economy and cause cost of living to go up, exactly like we are seeing right now. Just look at this Labor Gov's highest priority policy the Voice referendum, What an absolute disaster of a way to start an administration. Imagine if they spent all the time and energy on trying to curb inflation and lower interest rates rather than dividing the country how much better we'd all be right now…

        • scarface on 01/01/2025 - 19:17

          As luck would have it, the West Report video on Youtube popped up on my YT feed…I'd suggest everyone to subscribe on YT to them.

          I have come to the conclusion that 90% of pollies are either corrupt or useless or both.

  • linkindan on 31/12/2024 - 19:30
    +4

    Pay $100
    Far fewer asks for support

    • get-innocuous on 31/12/2024 - 19:59
      +2

      I have subscribed previously; as far as I can see they’re all gone. I guess they want to cover themselves if they write an article or something that asks for support, or you receive an email newsletter which doesn’t have the support request removed for subscribers.

  • SBOB on 31/12/2024 - 19:30
    +5

    🍿time

  • Bigfellaborham on 31/12/2024 - 19:43
    -4

    Not sure what’s worse, this or the Australian. As bad as eachother 😳

    • trentgibbo on 31/12/2024 - 19:58
      +4

      Why did you up vote it then?

      • ad62623 on 31/12/2024 - 20:12
        +32

        A deals a deal.

  • Thundaja on 31/12/2024 - 19:45
    -1

    Donate $3 to Wikipedia instead 👌🏻

    • muximus59 on 31/12/2024 - 20:11
      +48

      Wikipedia is a horrible organisation which begs for money when they don't need it. Give your money to the internet archive instead.

      • team teri on 31/12/2024 - 20:33
        +1

        Porque no los dos?

      • bcYield on 31/12/2024 - 21:08
        -2

        They are crying for being sold and you say they don't need money? Idk but I don't see ads on wiki. Not sure how they make money to support the website. Even here ozb we have ads and referrals.

        • EmanresuNekat on 31/12/2024 - 21:20
          +5

          They only use (and need) a tiny part of donations for supporting actual Wikipedia infrastructure. Rest just goes to their unnecessary hobbies.

          • bcYield on 31/12/2024 - 22:03
            +1

            @EmanresuNekat: Not sure how much you mean by tiny part. Under 2% if you haven't checked what It says on their website yet. Unless they fake the claim, many don't want wiki to go away.

            • EmanresuNekat on 31/12/2024 - 23:07
              +4

              @bcYield: That what I’m saying. They waste too much money on unnecessary things, for example giving grants to other organisations. Why would my donations given to another organisation that I really don’t care about? Or photo contests, or supporting projects that cost too much but have too little Wikipedia value.

              They can easily cut most services and still support Wikipedia for a long time without asking for any more donations.

              • bcYield on 01/01/2025 - 01:39
                +1

                @EmanresuNekat: Okay after reading some thoughts on Reddit some said it's just their normal donation champagne acting like an emergency case but it's actually not going anywhere soon with their current million dollar running.

                However, with all the spendings are being transparent and open source. They do have a breakdown on their budget in details. Myself haven't gone through that doc yet, your point might have been listed (with a reason?) idk.

      • Thundaja on 31/12/2024 - 23:34

        Also a good idea!

    • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:36
      -7

      Wikipedia is almost as biased as the guardian.

      • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 21:14
        +13

        You’re welcome to change it, I don’t understand why you don’t just contribute.

        All my contributions have stayed, none have gone away. It has also been extremely helpful in learning things, including during my university time. Obviously there have been mistakes, which I’ve gladly changed.

        • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 21:30
          +26

          uhm, changing wikipedia would require effort, knowledge and understanding how to use sources.

          They don't have any of that. Better just to call it "woke" and move on.

          • smartProverble on 01/01/2025 - 01:31
            +1

            @lelamo: It is honestly sometimes a platforms where trolls / government sponsored trolls can control articles… I'm looking at the ones related to China.

            • Undercut 2241 on 01/01/2025 - 04:43
              +1

              @smartProverble: Also rich/famous people can bribe editors to change the articles

              • wisdomtooth on 01/01/2025 - 11:16
                +2

                @Undercut 2241: Wikipedia's neutrality policy is a joke; they define neutrality as being neutral in reference to "reliable", i.e. mainstream, i.e. corporate, sources. They don't even reserve objectivity to avoid casting the pejoratives (e.g. "conspiracy theorist") the corporate media dishes out to the enemies of the establishment.

                And the editors themselves toe a very specific party line on controversial issues. Even former founders say so.

                To those who say "just go there and change it", stealing the "create your own social media company" line, I have, but there is a very entrenched kafkian bureaucracy to make sure nothing steps out of line.

          • 1st-Amendment on 01/01/2025 - 16:22
            +1

            @lelamo:

            uhm, changing wikipedia would require effort, knowledge and understanding how to use sources.

            And having a Left wing view of the world compatible with other editors…

            They don't have any of that.

            Who is 'They'? Source?

            Better just to call it "woke" and move on.

            Bias exists whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Just compare Trump's page to Obama's. The spin is obvious is you choose to look. It wouldn't pass a Year 10 English essay assignment.

            Example: " Many of (Trump's) comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, and misogynistic."
            By whom? Where are the sources for this piece of opinionated garbage?

            • ozbking on 02/01/2025 - 23:06

              @1st-Amendment: Surely most topics in an encyclopaedia don’t have to be left vs right? How are you going to have a left bias with an article on curtains?

              • wisdomtooth on 03/01/2025 - 10:32

                @ozbking: You'd be surprised. Just look in the talk pages — the ones that haven't yet been sanitised, that is! — and see that almost every single topic has controversy around it. Look at circumcision, for instance. Is it a left-right issue? Dunno. But the editors have a very clear line they toe.

              • 1st-Amendment on 03/01/2025 - 15:00
                -1

                @ozbking:

                Surely most topics in an encyclopaedia don’t have to be left vs right?

                Sure, and nowhere did I make that claim. But quite a lot of political and ideological topics do have a spin because we're all humans we all have existing opinions on things. And I just gave a good example to demonstrate this this exists and the bias almost always one way.

                If you aren't the type of person to look then you might not see it so much, but if you are looking it hits you in the face with how much of this there is.

                How are you going to have a left bias with an article on curtains?

                Nowhere did I make that claim. However since you mentioned this I can give a good example of how political & ideological bias creeps into almost everything.
                eg. Master Bedroom
                For for my entire life up until about 5 years ago, the Master Bedroom was always called a Master Bedroom. You can watch hundreds of TV shows over decades about selling houses or renovating houses that all refer to the Master Bedroom as the Master Bedroom. Everyone everywhere all universally concurred that the name for the big bedroom in a house is called the 'Master Bedroom'.
                But then in 2020 a left wing political movement decided that it was racist to call it the Master Bedroom and suddenly overnight the people that adhere to that ideology changed the name to 'Primary Bedroom'. If you check the Wiki Talk and History pages you can see where this change happened (9 August 2020). Thankfully in this case sanity has prevailed and the edits got rolled back, but often it doesn't. And it's everywhere. Sport, music, holidays, the Left always have to get in and twist everything to their crazy view of the world.

                • jackspratt on 03/01/2025 - 16:19

                  @1st-Amendment: I would have thought a purported free speech advocate such as yourself would be a strong supporter of someone who called for a change of name for the bedroom, or any other room for that matter.

                  Isn't that the very essence of free speech, or is it not applicable to the "Left"?

                  • 1st-Amendment on 03/01/2025 - 17:20

                    @jackspratt:

                    I would have thought…

                    There's your first problem. You didn't think hard enough.

                    a purported free speech advocate such as yourself would be a strong supporter of someone who called for

                    You are free to say what you like without government_intervention, and I'm free to have a different opinion. We are each free to express these things without the government getting involved.
                    Free speech doesn't mean I have to embrace your stupid ideas. Let me know which part of that you need help with.

                    Isn't that the very essence of free speech

                    No. And if you're going to try and sound clever about a subject you should at least know the very basics of what you are talking about.

                    Hint: 'Free Speech pertains to the government control of individual expression, not the bias of private media organisations which the topic here.
                    HTH.

                    • jackspratt on 03/01/2025 - 17:50

                      @1st-Amendment: Gee, you are a charmer.

                      So your advocacy for "free speech" doesn't extend past government controls over what is said or written.

                      What a bloviating boofhead.

    • team teri on 31/12/2024 - 20:14
      +92

      The Guardian doesn't have a paywall. You get to read all content.

      You're also not giving money to shareholders, since they are completely owned by a charitable trust.

      Essentially: every dollar you give them will ensure they exist a little longer. If no one pays, eventually the money of the charity will run out. Or they have to cut back on content to survive.

      If enough people pay voluntarily, they might just be around forever and keep up quality journalism.

      As to their biases: of course they are biased. Having a 'liberal' outlook (in the original sense of the word, not what our political party tries to hide behind that moniker) is part of the charter of the charity that owns them.

      That bias very clearly has an influence on what topics they report on. But: when it comes to news articles, they contain a lot more facts than any other media outlet I have come across. Unlike others the Guardian very clearly distinguish between factual reporting and opinion pieces.

      • bunnybash on 31/12/2024 - 20:23
        +40

        This. They actually have an understanding of what journalism is. Nothing is ever unbiased, but understanding the ethics of journalism and the difference between opinion and news is crucial.

      • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:39
        -4

        A lot of the articles are biased options masquerading as impartial journalism. But there is certain lots of information to be gleaned from this site that is hard to find elsewhere. I think we would miss it if it disappeared. But as u said it’s free so a cheaper ear subscriber deal that removes begging bowl ads is unlikely to be of interest to most ozbargainers.

      • sputnik on 31/12/2024 - 20:50
        +2

        It's not the charitable trust that relies on grannys collecting coins out the front of your local supermarket, but a charitable trust that is funded by organisations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Foundation.

        • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 21:19
          +7

          What the hell are you on about? It’s the Scott Trust Limited that owns The Guardian.

        • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 21:33
          +1

          trust that is funded by organisations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and George Soros' Open Society Foundation.

          Is The Guardian funded by either of those foundations?

        • arcticmonkey on 31/12/2024 - 21:37

          Once they are at this level of insanity, there's no going back.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join