Unsure when the sale started, but received an email 3 hours before posting this. Email states $0.25 a week, but believe this may be US pricing. AUD pricing at checkout is double, at $0.50 a week.
New York Times All Access Subscription A$2 Every 4 Weeks ($0.50/Week, up to a Year) @ New York Times
90
Salesniper on 23/01/2025 - 01:19 nytimes.com (108 clicks)
Last edited 23/01/2025 - 11:08 by 1 other user
Last edited 23/01/2025 - 11:08 by 1 other user
Related Stores
Comments
Doesn't even talk about their part in every damn war crime the US has committed.. eg. fabrication of consent towards the Iraq War etc. That alone shouldn't deserve any money to read their BS.
How do you know? I just did a quick Google search, looks like they have an article specifically about this. But can’t read it because I’m not a subscriber.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/world/middleeast/iraq-war…
Do some reading about the mbfc site before you go any further
Reading where? All the far right news sources tell all their people NEVER watch or listen to the ABC, just for starters. You have to keep in mind bias whenever you read, listen or watch anything — there is usually multiple ways to assess the content via editorial; it's often clear they say something a particular way because it supports their political bias and if they said it another way, they might not even have a job.
I'll elaborate as you appear to have misunderstood my intent. Google and read the discussion about that website and don't blindly accept its ratings.
Lol that link reeks of PR and looks dodgy af with a whole lot of ad banners if you don't have an ad blocker. NYT is propaganda plain and simple. NYT YouTube Channel comment section is botted to hell too
Give us some examples of this "propaganda", what evidence you have that they are typical of the NYT, and why you believe that they're "propaganda". I already know the answer to the last part, your parroting is a dead giveaway.
yeah, it under represents how far right the unaustralian is..
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-australian/I believe the unaustralian is very much far right.
The mixed factual reporting rating should be enough to put any intelligent person off
I skim The Australian (can’t read anything away because it’s all paywalled). Because I was over the left bias in the Guardian and somewhat the ABC. The ABC news articles are all clickbait paragraphs, eg. “Charlie and Emma saw their bank balance drop, then this happened”, and the format of their news website is crap since they overhauled it late last year. My partner has a subscription to The Age but again, unless you live in metro Melbourne or are into AFL (I’m neither), there’s not much left.
Other than that, I don’t know where to get Australian news. Judging by the article titles on The Australian, there’s a slight centre-right bias but is not too bad - not like the Herald Sun for example. At least The Australian doesn’t have huge clickbait mystery article titles - just what the article is.
Got to agree with you on the abc, the mobile news app is horrid now and the "click baitness" … remember, so many journalists start their journey in MurderPress which sets them up for a life of right wing bias. The abc news notifications, click on them and often times you get the daily digest page and not direct to the article that "sounds" a little interesting.
Paywall, theunaustralian, if they really want you to see it, you will see it; there are ways around the paywall, however, if the news headlines are interesting enough, then it may be possible to search for other articles not via theunaustralian; if they only end up being available from theunaustralian, then I'm not paying them a cent.
The New York Times' only legitimacy is Wordle.
Their recipes are good. Bit of a pest as to when it hits the paywall though
Would I think about paying to subscribe for the recipes at this price? Yes.
Would I actually do it? No
A bit harsh. I'm addicted to Spelling Bee. Got genius 10 times in a row
fake news outlet
And evidence to support this?
It’s your standard ozbargain comment on any news related deals.
It's publications like that that have failed to put down the fascists, instead they have enjoyed the 'extra clicks'.
needs to be renamed "the new york war crimes"
Why so? I'd bet your tent/rent that like most posters on this website who make similar comments eg Unc above and marshy below you haven't got a clue about its content, or the legitimacy of any of the articles whose observations and opinions you clearly wouldn't like, let alone comprehend.
the manufacturing consent for the genocide in gaza by the NYT
the white and pinkwashing of the genocide in gaza
the creation of rape propaganda, which was completely debunked and they never acknowledged it nor issued a statement retracting itThrow up the links. I haven't read the articles which have obviously tainted your opinion on that one topic but a 10 minute google found plenty of responses to the original erroneous rape article. Interestingly a UN investigation now says there is credible evidence of sexual violence in multiple locations: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/04/world/israel-hamas-w…
Extract from the UN report:
Based on the information gathered by the mission team from multiple and independent
sources, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred
during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and
gang rape, in at least three locations. Across the various locations of the 7 October attacks, the
mission team found that several fully naked or partially naked bodies from the waist down were
recovered – mostly women – with hands tied and shot multiple times, often in the head.
Although circumstantial, such a pattern of undressing and restraining of victims may be
indicative of some forms of sexual violence.What do you make of that? You can read the full report which elaborates on the obviously complex issues here: https://news.un.org/en/sites/news.un.org.en/files/atoms/file…
If you search I'm sure you'll find numerous other NYT links to the original invented story (which smacks of the same sort of propaganda the IDF has used to excuse its abhorrent behaviour ever since) which clearly show "they" (editors?) acknowledged if not "owned" it.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/new-york-times-raises-skep…
Ignoring the multitudinous complexities of the Israel/Palestinian/arab conflict, is there any reason you've overlooked the murdering of innocent men/women and children (and hostages) by Hamas extremists, who even now hide among civilians?
Like every media organisation the NYT is fallible. I've previously mentioned how they published (and didn't later retract or rebut) an article by a rw "journalist" who blindly accepted the words of an anti-mask UK academic where he totally misprespresented the results of a paper he co-authored. She hadn't bothered to read even the summary of the paper (it wasn't complex even by average journalist standards), almost certainly because his views accorded with her own.
Lol imagine paying for propaganda
Esp when you can get your daily dose of rw inanity from free sources. Care to share your current addiction er site for news, analysis and commentary or do you want to keep that secret for obvious reasons?
Interesting, I would never have thought they would report this well:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Usually, these days, I think newspapers and media orgainizations whom push so much political propaganda, (as is normally the case), should be paying you to read them and not the other way around. But this one comes up okay, wonder if the reporting link above is fair and useful.