• expired

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

14314
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 (667 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

    • macklington on 31/12/2024 - 19:55
      +50

      I don't know. Can you define 'woke'?

        • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 20:50
          +42

          If only you could read, then you would be upset at your own link.

          However, as time passed by, people started using this term recklessly, assigning this term to themselves or someone they know to boost their confidence and reassure them that they have the moral high grounds and are fighting for the better world.

          And as of now, the original meaning is slowly fading and instead, is used more often to term someone as hypocritical and think they are the 'enlightened' despite the fact that they are extremely close-minded and are unable to accept other people's criticism or different perspective.

    • iWan on 31/12/2024 - 19:56

      Surely not worse than The Daily Worker, sorry, the Age.

      • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 21:24
        +1

        I don’t quite understand this comment. The Guardian definitely has more of the socially progressive bias than The Age. I mean, it’s actually in their charter.

    • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 20:04
      +8

      It's not the publication for balanced opinion, far leftist. In fact all their articles are locked down, they don't want open opinion. Typical progressive politics of the day.

      • team teri on 31/12/2024 - 20:19
        +37

        Perhaps they just don't want to spend too much time moderating morons who can't read or do simple maths, and who think to 'do your own research' means quoting from some random twitter feed.

        Other places are swamped with that. Makes it all but impossible to have an actual discussion. And if that is the case, might as well not have one.

          • team teri on 31/12/2024 - 20:31
            +34

            @niknikniknik: 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?

              • trentgibbo on 31/12/2024 - 21:04
                +16

                @FXx: Oh no! It's not on Twitter? Whatever will people do when there isn't a pile of musk bots commenting trash?!

            • niknikniknik on 31/12/2024 - 21:03
              +15

              @team teri:

              1. 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.

              2. 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.

              3. 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 31/12/2024 - 21:14

                @niknikniknik: 👏👏👏 Perfect response to the nonsense reply to your original comment.

              • team teri on 01/01/2025 - 11:20
                +2

                @niknikniknik: Which publication presents all available facts in all their articles? None. Because quite frankly that is impossible.

                Best you can hope for is that everything presented in an article has been checked to be factually correct. That's what happens at The Guardian a lot more than elsewhere.

                Take the current discussion around nuclear power in Australia for example. Have you noticed any of the right leaning publications picking up on one of the many very obvious flaws and omissions in the Frontier Economics report? Or did they all just report that report as 'facts', since there isn't any more credible source to support their politically chosen stance?

                Very big difference between actively publishing known falsehoods and leaving out some irrelevant details that do little to change the overall conclusion.

                Your argument has consistently remained the same: because they choose to focus on topics you disagree with, The Guardian isn't worth supporting. That may be true for you, but it certainly isn't true for everyone. And for the people that down voted this 'deal' based on the content of the publication: how does that meet the voting guidelines?

                • niknikniknik on 01/01/2025 - 13:31
                  +1

                  @team teri: I don't understand why your argument revolves around what Murdoch media is doing. At no point have I suggested that they're not in the wrong with their rightward bias and spin - merely saying that leftward bias and spin in the guardian is very clear and therefore they're effectively doing the same thing on either side of the fence. And moreso, I don't understand why someone would pay for this.

                  You can provide examples all you want about rightward media, I could do the same about the guardian's one sided coverage about the referendum for example which not once referenced the $300-400M estimated taxpayer spend; reported on "misinformation from the no side" but not once touched on misinformation from the yes side. This is in contravention of their own claim to unbiased reporting.

                  "Leaving out irrelevant details that do little to change the outcome" is a clear indication that you obviously don't care about biased reporting and are willing to accept it as long as it fulfills your preconceived narrative. So you yourself are in the boat that you accused me of, because you are willing to disregard the missing information which may counteract your point of view. This is no different in practice than missing pieces from the Frontier report which you seem to have a problem with.

                  To summarise, it's not in the best interest of people to read the guardian in isolation, and paying for it is a strange concept to me. That's not to say that paying for Sky News for example is any better - but if you can't see that the guardians coverage is more than just "irrelevant details" left out then you truly are indoctrinated.

                  Regarding OzB voting - negs are to let users know about issues with the deal, merchant or product. Some users clearly have an issue with the product (left biased news) so a neg is fair game. Just search sky News deals on here and see how many negs those posts have.

            • Onemoredeal on 31/12/2024 - 21:36
              +2

              @team teri: Exactly! If it’s not their opinion it’s garbage … there aren’t many truely centre media organisations out there and if there was they wouldn’t include opinion pieces cause you wouldn’t have one. I’m a big fan of AlJazeera as well as they don’t pump any ideology but I do get to learn about parts of the world no one else reports on and I like to learn

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

            @niknikniknik: When you're a hammer, everything is a woke nail

        • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 20:53
          +12

          .. and out come the insults.

          Sure, I disagree with you so surely I must be filled with hatred. You forgot sexist, racist and misogynist BTW.

          • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 20:57
            +23

            @FXx: Bruh, I just ctrl+f your comment history and the first page there are comments from you complaining about "DEI agenda".

            https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/874231#comment-15920788

            I know exactly what type of person you are.

            • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 21:10
              +6

              @lelamo: I could make similarly immature assumptions about yourself if I wanted to too, incl. childish insults.

              And yes, this 'incel' (as you called me) is home with his wife and 2yr old child instead of partying on New Year's Eve. You really got me 'bruh'..

              • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 21:13
                +25

                @FXx: Imagine having a wife and a child and being on OzBargain with 2,700 comments complaining about "woke".

                I feel bad for them.

                • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 21:17

                  @lelamo: Yes, you're a very, very angry person aren't you? More lies and insults.

                  I hope 2025 is a happier one for yourself.

                  • lelamo on 31/12/2024 - 21:19
                    +14

                    @FXx:

                    you're a very, very angry person aren't you?

                    I'm not the one on Oz Bargain with 2,700 comments complaining about black people.

                    • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 21:26
                      +3

                      @lelamo: Damn, you've caught me out again. I do indeed have nearly 3000 posts on here, all complaining about 'woke' and 'black people'.

                      I appreciate the free entertainment tonight, I really do.

            • youfnc on 01/01/2025 - 08:43

              @lelamo: It's ironic that he is now in the penalty box for making personal attacks."

        • owduck on 31/12/2024 - 21:12
          +13

          It's amazing the insane things people believe about this centre-left website. Reading this thread, you'd think everyone was talking about Red Flag, not the Guardian lol.

      • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:40
        +3

        The articles are not locked. There is no paywall. Just a begging bowl.

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

          Yep. I meant locked from comment.

    • trentgibbo on 31/12/2024 - 20:07
      +39

      Nice work referencing one 6 year old article. Meanwhile, news.com.au has an expose on Bigfoot every other month.

      • twig on 31/12/2024 - 20:19
        +20

        Ah the good old "EVs are here to ruin your weekend" brainrot

      • pharcyde on 31/12/2024 - 20:56
        +12

        Murdoch lives rent free in your head 🤣

        How about from 2024 - "Men and other mammals live longer if they are castrated, says researcher".

        • trentgibbo on 01/01/2025 - 07:01
          +2

          Yep keep dreaming buddy. I'm not the one that was getting all hot under the collar from an article that was 6 years ago. Sounds like guardian lives rent free in your head.

      • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 21:35
        +7

        I appreciate news.com.au is Murdoch owned, but occasionally (just occasionally) it produces a valuable news article. When I’m reading through, I’m like “am I on the wrong site?” Then I get to the comments section, and I realise it’s still just news.com.au

    • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 20:09
      +11

      Yes, gyms should be closed. Equity (DEI) should be enforced to protect skinny, unathletic male feminists from looking unfavorable to women as potential partners in comparison to masculine, muscular 'bro culture' men.

    • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:40
      +4

      These people shouldn’t be breeding anyway..

    • jackspratt on 01/01/2025 - 02:58
      +1

      Not surprising that your wife has a boyfriend, who is providing the intellectual stimulation missing in her life.

    • cashless on 01/01/2025 - 09:18
      +2

      this is my wife's boyfriends favourite publication

      Something about that sentence doesn’t seem right.
      Did you copy/paste from the Gruaniad?

  • AntonioSantino on 31/12/2024 - 20:07
    +7

    Stopped even looking when I read an edition one day with an article headlined along the lines of Dutton's an exploding fire hydrant. I should pay for worse than undergraduate writing?

  • niknikniknik on 31/12/2024 - 20:07
    +2

    Kill it with fire

  • caustic birch on 31/12/2024 - 20:16
    +2

    Lol, bargain…

  • get-innocuous on 31/12/2024 - 20:17
    +2

    Strangely I noticed that if I subscribe via app the price is $69.99 (also a 50% discount from normal $140). Anyone know why the app might be cheaper? Usually if anything it’s more expensive because of Apple’s 30% cut.

    • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:41

      Does the app sub give you access to the website if you are on a computer or just to the app?

  • Be careful on 31/12/2024 - 20:44

    It’s not much of a deal as it’s basically free anyway.nyou are. Enter off getting the regular deals of 10 printed issues sent to u for $10 including digital. Ozbargain is full of adblicker users so I doubt many are going to pay when there is no paywall and paying a whopping $100 just removes begging bowl ads.

  • RexLongfellow on 31/12/2024 - 20:47
    +45

    These comments helped me understand why the Guardian doesn't allow commenting lmao

    • pharcyde on 31/12/2024 - 20:58
      +1

      The left absolutely loves silencing dissenting opinions, that much is clear.

      • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 21:25
        +24

        Why is it only the left? Trump and musk both love silencing dissenting opinion. Trump even sued a pollster for a view he wasn’t happy with.

        • Loki556 on 31/12/2024 - 21:53
          -2

          Mmm, when that pollster was absolutely wrong and couldn’t explain the methodology of arriving at the result, which appears to have been nothing more then an attempt to drive public opinion towards Harris.

          It’s not an attempt to silence an alternative viewpoint, not by a long shot.

          • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 23:42
            +7

            @Loki556: Let’s assume the pollster is wrong. So it’s ok to disallow their free speech but it’s inappropriate for a left leaning organisation like the guardian to disallow right wing free speech.

            It’s just hypocrisy at its best, either you support free speech both ways, or you criticise both sides. You don’t just criticise the side that disagrees with your viewpoints.

            • Loki556 on 01/01/2025 - 00:12

              @ozbking: Free speech is quite different from presenting something as factual, which when examined, is falsehood. The court will be able to determine if the poll was done in good faith or was a blatant propaganda piece.

              If it’s in good faith then she should be confident of a win and can counter sue.

  • vicsta on 31/12/2024 - 20:49
    +11

    Rather throw money out of the window than spend it on this. Quite possibly the most biased publication in Australia (Yes that includes all the "bUT mURdOCH" publications)

    • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 23:51

      I agree it’s biased.

      Though in fairness, they are more open than Murdoch publications about their bias.

      (Also, technically it was Malcolm Turnbull with the liberal party leadership that helped get Guardian Australia off the ground)

  • wizzlesticks on 31/12/2024 - 20:50
    +5

    Grifting to the far left, who don't realise they're extreme ideologists.

    • pharcyde on 31/12/2024 - 21:16
      +3

      Many such cases, Wizzle.

    • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 21:27
      +7

      Left or right, extreme ideologies are terrible for society.

      Sky News and The Australian would be the extreme right in your comparison.

      • FXx on 31/12/2024 - 21:50
        +5

        I agree. Though all publications should leave their online articles open for critique. If they're closing it down intentionally, people with common sense should be skeptical.

    • arcticmonkey on 31/12/2024 - 21:41
      +5

      Make sure you mark comments like this as an 'invalid negative vote'. It does not meet the guidelines.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 31/12/2024 - 21:00
    +7

    I already pay for the ABC i dont need anymore Hard left propganda but thanks for the deal OP

    • arcticmonkey on 31/12/2024 - 21:42
      +6

      The one formerly chaired by the Liberal party hack, Peter Costello?

    • bikebot on 01/01/2025 - 07:07
      +5

      Someone who thinks the ABC is left biased. How quint!

  • loropy9 on 31/12/2024 - 21:01
    +12

    Propagardian.

  • bcYield on 31/12/2024 - 21:09
    +6

    Everyone already paid for ABC. Just use it lol. For most, YouTube, tiktok and Instagram are faster with hot news lol

  • GordonD on 31/12/2024 - 21:11
    +2

    I find every media outlet publishes some interesting stories and some drivel, and doesn't print some things I would be interesting in reading about.

    I used to have the Sydney Morning Herald as my primary source. But then 9 bought it, and didn't pension of the living in 1960s Cold War warriors like Peter Hartcher.

    So now I go to the Guardian. Yes it prints a lot of annoying left wing drivel, and it prints anything anti-Russian no matter how obviously it is just propaganda, Zelenskiy says this. Zelenskiy says that. But pretty much uniquely it is not afraid of the friends of Israel, so it worth reading for that alone.

    • owduck on 31/12/2024 - 21:35

      Yeah their liberal bias is upfront and clear. In that sense they're preferable to News Corp/Nine papers that hide their right-wing bias better.

      I'm not giving them any money because I don't care for their awful columnists (and how opinion articles are hidden on the main page amongst the real news).

      Funny you mention Israel. Nathan J Robinson was cut for criticising US policy on Israel in 2021. Not saying he's much of a loss to any paper, but he was absolutely correct in what he said and it was an example to me of the Guardian upholding neoliberal views against criticism from the left. I take their more recent turn against Israel as following the winds of public opinion, not bravery.

    • Corgsta on 31/12/2024 - 21:54
      +2

      But pretty much uniquely it is not afraid of the friends of Israel, so it worth reading for that alone.

      Oh that must she changed recently. I was a daily reader of the Guardian (and saw the left slant to everything, it got very tiring) until recently. I couldn’t bear any more anti-Israel (+pro-Palestinian, +pro-UN etc) coverage, it was relentless. So I’ve gone wandering around the ABC (barely usable), Inkl (badly laid out and not useable), News.com.au (too many uninteresting random stories about petty crime, beauty makeover mistakes, sport, road rage etc), the Australian (good but pay walled), yet still haven’t found any decent centrist news. I do read France24.com for fairly unbiased international news.

      I also found the Guardian absolutely hardcore on asylum seekers. And maybe it was also self preservation with the constant stream of climate change depression articles despite the world mostly not doing much about it.

      I think their journalism is decent and well written, and their website is nicely laid out and good to scroll, it’s just the political bias that I couldn’t deal with any more.

      • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 23:47

        I have the same issue with the Australian. In election years, they repeat multiple articles of similar falsehoods, and openly criticise Labor while avoiding negative articles on Liberal party.

        Journalism wise, Fairfax is much better and in depth. The Australian isn’t centrist, it is extreme right wing.

  • iguana on 31/12/2024 - 21:20
    +1

    "Far fewer asks for support"
    What? They still beg you for money even after giving them some?

  • Elephant on 31/12/2024 - 21:31
    +1

    It's a good deal, if this is what you're looking for.

    I probably wouldn't have bothered up voting though, if it was for idealogues just down voting because it doesn't follow their 4chan "logic".

  • duluxe2000 on 31/12/2024 - 21:48
    +2

    If the Guardian is owned by a charitable trust, wouldn't donate money to the trust better than buying subscription ? (Tax deductible )

  • nightmarez3k on 31/12/2024 - 21:50
    +1

    Guardian is funded by others to sell you propoganda why even pay for this.

    Wikipedia also funded by same.

    Both will survive with or without your donation. They just need your viewership so they can get the real bucks from CIA and others.

    • Phoebus on 01/01/2025 - 00:08
      +3

      ^this
      They get plenty of funding, from your taxes already. Then they cry for more. Wikipedia has enough cash to fund operations for 100 years but keeps begging for money. Idiots keep paying

    • Corgsta on 01/01/2025 - 09:08
      +2

      Are you actually saying the Guardian and Wikipedia are CIA propaganda outlets? Didn’t think such bizarre conspiracy believers frequented ozbargain. I assume you also think the earth is flat?

      Be nice to see some proof for this. As Wikipedia says, Citation Needed.

  • Loki556 on 31/12/2024 - 21:54
    +6

    If you are happy to sponsor your “re-education”, this is a bargain.

    • arcticmonkey on 01/01/2025 - 00:30
      +2

      Make sure to mark this as 'invalid negative vote'. It's against the guidelines.

  • Phoebus on 31/12/2024 - 22:13
    +10

    You can get The Off guardian for free. This isn't even worth a dollar.

  • mrwoo on 31/12/2024 - 22:18
    +3

    Hard Left drivel. Avoid!

    • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 23:52
      +3

      Why? Would you say the same thing about Sky News being Hard Right?

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/01/2025 - 07:35
        -2

        Sky News being Hard Right

        i would say Sky is right but it isnt 'hard right' it has loads of left wing reporters or former ALP/Greens members on roaster the difference is it is Anti Woke which for some reason the left and the woke are the same thing

        • arcticmonkey on 01/01/2025 - 09:29
          +6

          LOL.

        • donkcat on 01/01/2025 - 09:29
          +2

          Sky after dark is hard right. No doubt about that

          • Trying2SaveABuck on 01/01/2025 - 11:01

            @donkcat: Never watched it but happy to be corrected i have onlywatched Sky during election counts as they had a free stream they the recent QLD election they had 2 ALP former ministers (one of them wasa Annastasia Pal) a nationals a Liberal and a few journalists a few journalists

            They actually has discussions about both sides and decision that impact voters

            Whilst i watched the ABC debates on the voice bar the episode was Jacinta Price it was essentially 7 people all agreeing we needed the voice no debate no discussion

            Got no interest in Sky news generally but from the small parts I've seen it's does a better job of representing voters then the govt funded ABC - at the very least it isnt 'woke' and personally think ABC could use a bit of two sided reporting opposed the left wing bias it has on everything

            • donkcat on 01/01/2025 - 11:32
              +1

              @Trying2SaveABuck: Sky do election panels reasonable but then again so do all the MSM outlets, it's more the other times that the issue. The writing was on the wall when David Spears left Sky. They seemed to go further down the right wing rabbit hole during covid where they expanded their youtube viewership that captivated a global audience but by doing so seem to venture more into the Fox News territory.

              The ABC had to defend themselves during those Voice debates, the answer seemed to be that No advocates kept declining invites to come on and debate, they had this issue across TV and radio. The whole ABC bias talk really just comes from ones own position of bias, they really are the only ones that hold a government account regardless of political affiliation. The truth is it would be very difficult to only receive news via the Guardian and vote coalition and it would be quite difficult to only receive news from News Corp and vote Labor, the same can't be said for the ABC, it is much closer to balanced.

      • The Wololo Wombat on 01/01/2025 - 10:49

        Yep.

    • arcticmonkey on 01/01/2025 - 00:30
      -2

      Make sure to mark this as 'invalid negative vote'. It's against the guidelines.

  • Iwantthebestprice on 31/12/2024 - 22:20
    +6

    Paying to read the guardian, in what century!

  • kulvinbartia on 31/12/2024 - 23:00
    +1

    I downloaded the app and noticed that an exclusive offer appeared on the mobile app screen, providing an option to subscribe for $69 annually.

  • Breno785au on 31/12/2024 - 23:10
    +2

    People still pay to read any news outlet?

    • ozbking on 31/12/2024 - 23:50
      +3

      Yes, I also donate to The Conversation to support journalism. Unfortunately, if we only rely on free sources, there ends up a trend towards clickbait, rather than investigative journalism.

      • Phoebus on 01/01/2025 - 00:14

        The Conversation is not journalism
        https://theconversation.com/trans-youth-are-already-among-au…

        • beltdrive on 01/01/2025 - 07:01
          +3

          Is that link supposed to prove your point that it isn’t journalism? If so, explain how

        • bikebot on 01/01/2025 - 07:04
          +2

          You just don't like science, because it's inconvenient for your pre-conceived biases and causes cognitive dissonance.

          • pharcyde on 01/01/2025 - 07:26

            @bikebot: "In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my intelligence" vibes from this.

          • arcticmonkey on 01/01/2025 - 09:36
            -1

            @bikebot: A lot of the uneducated and naive dislike science.

        • HamesJoffman on 01/01/2025 - 18:21

          Waiting for an actual argument

      • Corgsta on 01/01/2025 - 09:10
        +1

        They are a very good outfit. Worth donating to!

      • belongsinforums on 01/01/2025 - 09:41

        Abc loves clickbait now. X did Y and you'll never guess what happened next!

      • this is us on 01/01/2025 - 11:08

        This woman found the husband with her best friend… You can't imagine what happened next…

        Why gen X makes the worst milkshakes?

        Why Australian dream is over

        …
        Generally everything starting with "Why" or an affirmation is bulshit these days.

  • RexLongfellow on 31/12/2024 - 23:34
    +9

    All the far right "free speech" advocates really outing themselves in this comment section huh. Guess it's only free speech when it's rightwing talking points.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join