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 (167 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…
I’m a subscriber. Not sure what’s the limit in terms of access but here’s the gift version of the article
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/world/middleeast/iraq-war…
@Cap N: Thanks! Well, had a skim through the article and it quotes various people from the US govt during and after the war, and their explanation for reasons for the Iraq invasion. So I think on balance the NYT does talk about this stuff but I’m not going to spend too much time trying to dispel the person I was responding to.
@Corgsta: There are numerous articles on the NYT website about their blinkered support of the fabricated WMD justification (hardly the act of a supposedly leftie media outlet). This one search alone turns up plenty: https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt+iraq+weapons+of+mass+des…
This discussion - which you should be able to read - about the internal review of their Iraq coverage clearly states they admitted to making major errors, so the board wasn't afraid to conduct a review, nor did they cover up or sugar coat their own failures:
@Igaf: Thanks. That’s good to know. I guess like most social media, the guy who chucks out a misinformed one liner gets most of the views and upvotes/likes, leaving fact finding in its wake. Lots of those tire types of comments here. I’ll consider subscribing.
@Corgsta: We are ALL grossly ignorant about most things. bchliu being ignorant of the numerous NYT articles which essentially shoot down the opinion expressed is a far too common phenomenon on this website unfortunately.
Generally speaking, apparently being unaware that something exists/happened means it doesn't/didn't in the minds of some lazy Ozbargainers (takes max 15 minutes to search and peruse results to get at least a flavour of fact). That said bchlui's opinion may just be badly expressed or we might have misinterpreted its meaning.
Take comment upvotes and negs with a grain of salt, esp on social issues.
Plenty of people have "handed in their memberships"/unsubscribed to organisations and media outlets based one one or two major disagreements with (a) the way things are handled and (b) what was actually done/written. BUT, more often they do so due to the behaviour of mgt/boards when major issues (like WMD, the IDF soldier lie about Hamas rape, giving column space to unscientific claptrap etc) have been exposed and debunked, which in some cases should really lead to resignations at board/editorial level. I have no problem at all with people taking their business elsewhere where it's based on rational thinking, just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater as the saying goes.
If you're getting the impression I think the NYT is the best thing since sliced bread you'd be very wrong. However, in an industry which has largely turned its back on fact, rationality and reason it's somewhat of a beacon in that country from my very limited exposure to it. It would be handy if we had something of similar quality here. Expecting any media outlet to be perfect, always rational, unbiased or evenhanded, or to only have content which always fits your own views, is extremely childish.
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.
@Igaf: I don't Google anything, DDG perhaps others…. but not Google. My own view based on what I've seen, it seems to rate sites a little to the left of what I think they should be; but the super trump sites, they go about as far right as possible with very little room to be even more extreme! That all makes sense to me, 100%, based on what I've see over the years. Insanity prevails when it comes to trump, perhaps the same dire consequences will be returned here with TheDud.
@affinity: I like your stance on the arguably evil google company, unfortunately for broad use it's still the best search engine by far despite obvious signs of decline.
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.
Examples of propaganda: For starters, the NYT bought the lie (or maybe even started it?) that there's was a global pandemic between 2020 and 2022. More reputable news sources have proven convincingly that it was all a Bill Gates plot to make people buy 5g phones and that the World Bank was probably also in on it.
@CacheHunter: Well, I read that some ('northern hemisphere') covid vaccines contained engineered nano-spikes to control behaviour and thoughts. These had to be activated somehow. I'm inclined to agree with the theory. How else can the current epidemic of stupidity, irrationality and @rse kissing be explained in a supposedly educated society with a "free press"? Further evidence is that - as you, and I, and other "elites" know - global mortality rates didn't budge one decimal point from normal standardised rates during the unpandemic. Bet the NYT won't report those facts.
@Igaf: Exactly, though in general I would caution you about believing things that you 'read'. Personally, I only believe things that I can see with my own eyes, such as TikTok, Truth Social or WeChat videos.
@CacheHunter: Hence the massive taxpayer handout to those help struggling AI developers in 'North Mexico'. Has TacTic or Struth SS said what the share divvy arrangement is yet?
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.