• long running

New York Times Basic Digital Subscription A$2 Every 4 Weeks ($0.50/Week, up to a Year) @ New York Times

1107

It's been about a year since the last deal was shared so thought I'd highlight that it was still around when I purchased just now.

NYT is obviously not everyone's cup of tea - that's fair. But I like it and think they do a pretty good job across a range of issues. You can check out Mediabiasfactcheck if you want to take a look at their bias and credibility. Shout out to pretz in a previous deal for highlighting the resource.

The Basic Digital Subscription does not include recipes or crosswords. Just the online edition and through their app. Price reverts after the first year so make sure to cancel before then.

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times

Comments

  • +18

    $20 a year if purchased in one hit :)

    • +20

      Consider your brain thoroughly washed

      • +5

        Never said I was buying it ;)

        Not interested in propaganda news

  • +49

    Propaganda

    • +4

      What would you recommend?

      • +3

        Economist

        • -5

          Ah… a money-centric world view. That could work for all most some a few of us!

          • +7

            @tharlow: You’re thinking of AFR. Economist is broader than finance.

            • -3

              @Bedgrub: Actually, nothing is broader than finance. And especially not The Economist

              • +4

                @tharlow: The Economist covers broader topics than just finance.

                • @Bedgrub: OK — name just one. Don’t get me wrong, they have some insightful stuff, like this. But it’s far from a source of inspiration for the modern thinker

                  • @tharlow: Name just one what? Article?

                    What’s your benchmark news source so I can select one that you might like?

                • @Bedgrub: Yes and the New York Times covers broader topics than New York.

      • +6

        I recommend The Guardian for the very finest neoliberal trash

        • +12

          Always good to get an opinion from a "modern thinker" 🤣

        • +6

          I recommend tharlow for fully objective accounts of all news outlets

      • +3

        Probably Infowars

        • -1

          US buried Infowars as its not support "democracy" agenda, isn't?

    • +9

      True. They got exposed publishing Chinese Communist Party propaganda
      https://www.opindia.com/2021/07/us-media-washington-post-nyt…

      • -4

        One person’s propaganda is another person’s principle

      • +1

        No evidence of anything outside a few mil in funding from "Opindia" there. This is the kind of inference that gets people falling down rabbit holes.

      • +20

        Maybe I’m a victim of reading the whole article and not just the headline, but the article says the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal were each paid millions and included a ‘China Watch’ supplement that could be reasonably construed to be propaganda because it was produced by a Chinese owned news organization, but the article only says the NYT was paid $50,000 for advertising, not the millions the millions the others got, and advertising is basically all propaganda.

        So if anything it seems to make me trust headlines even less…. Also trust less anyone whose conclusion is that they got caught publishing CCP propaganda.

        • +2

          Maybe I’m a victim of reading the whole article and not just the headline,

          The body… the final frontier. These are the voyages of the news seeker jkart… to boldly go where no one has gone before!

          Well, except the author, perhaps. Attention spans are getting worryingly… SQUIRREL!

          • +2

            @tharlow: 🤡

            Were you down there screeching at Parliament House with the crazies and partaking in the sharing of all kinds of diseases round the camps? Sounds like it.

            • +1

              @Techie4066: Perhaps you should have a little more respect for the people’s elected representatives?

              • +3

                @tharlow: Oh don't get me wrong, I volunteered for an independent and got a good laugh out of the Prayer Room exposé. I noticed you pled the Fifth.

        • +1

          $50,000 too much. There's a difference between "Chinese" owned and CCP backed influenced.

          and advertising is basically all propaganda.

          I'd guess someone is sympathetic to the CCP when they attempt to suggest CCP propaganda is anything like all other kinds of advertising.

          • +2

            @Blitzfx:

            I'd guess someone is sympathetic to the CCP when they attempt to suggest CCP propaganda is anything like all other kinds of advertising.

            Completely hinges on what worldview and system you've been programmed to accept. When you compare how the CCP violates human rights vs how the US literally does the exact same illegally invading countries, you might see things differently.

          • +4

            @Blitzfx: There's a difference between something that's an ad and something masquerading as journalism.

            I'm not comfortable with it either, but accuracy is important. The reality is even the Australian government advertises in other countries outlets.

            sympathetic to the CCP

            Not at all, their human rights abuses and censorship are particularly egregious. People who are vulnerable to propaganda (from one side or the other) are the ones that see things as black and white, either "it has to be millions of dollars for pure propaganda" or "CCP Good". The world isn't that black and white, and you're in trouble if you're expecting it to be.

            Real propaganda convinces you it's not, something you can't do with adverts, which clearly espouse a point of view. The 'China Watch' insert on the other hand, while obvious to the trained eye, is much more effective propaganda because it's masquerading as news.

        • +2

          Maybe I’m a victim of reading the whole article and not just the headline,

          Then you are doing it wrong.
          Read headline, get angry. That is how most people seem to do it.

      • +1

        Do you realise how much of a fool you are for quoting something from OpIndia and did you even read the article.
        The article states that "China spent a total of $11,002,628 on advertising in US newspapers". Anyone can place an ad in any newspaper for anything.
        The NYT was not promoting Chinese Communist Party propaganda in a "cash for comments".
        Finally, do your research on OpIndia before ever citing them again, they have regularly been called out for making outrageously false and racist claims.

        • Did you even do your own research? What part of the financial documents documents submitted to the government was false?

          Anyone can place an ad in any newspaper for anything

          And yet you say

          The NYT was not promoting Chinese Communist Party propaganda in a "cash for comments".

          They are literally promoting propaganda.

          You must think the only types of ads are the ones selling a Refrigerator for 50% off

  • +1

    No my cup of tea.

    • +17

      What happened?!? Did you spill it? Did someone steal it?

      • +5

        Maybe jv only read news written by himself…

        • +5

          jv's news comes in the form of backtracking through past comments to tally up the negs and calculate if it's enough to hit the leaderboard for an umpteenth time running.

    • +12

      If jv says “no”, then I’m gonna subscribe

    • +2

      What is your cup of tea?

      • Liptons?

  • +23

    Funny how every second article on this website is calling for some sort of attack or bombing or bringing democracy to some country.

    • +7

      Democracy? Is that some kind of system where the inmates run the asylum?

    • -3

      You mean like that attempted coup over there at the Capitol?

      Or left-wing resistance to war?

    • +18

      I just looked through the front page on nytimes.com and I'm pretty sure I didn't see any? If it's every second article, surely at least one of them should be?

      If you could just back up that assertion with some examples on their front page atm that'd be swell.

  • +24

    I get my news from Facebook. Free and fake!

    • -5

      It’s only fake if you want it to be fake

  • +5

    theres plenty of free news sources. alot unbias too.

    • +25

      alot unbias too.

      LOL

      • LOL

        Does that include ABC?

        • +6

          I wonder how long their love affair with the Labor party will last?

        • +2

          Does that include ABC?

          ROFLMAO !!!

  • +15

    Good deal but as a former American, I have lost interest in the events happening in America. I am so much happier as an Australian

      • +8

        r/QAnonCasualties

        • +1

          🤓 ☝️

  • +7

    Yet more left-wing MSM mumbo jumbo/revisionism/distortion?

    No thanks

    • +21

      thinking NY Times is representative of the left is insane

      • +1

        thinking NY Times is representative of the left is insane

        Well you said it so it must be true, a truly Leftist way of thinking if ever there was one.

        Let's see what someone else thinks about this for perspective:
        https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_St…

        https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

        NYT seems to skew left according to multiple other sources, but I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why you believe this isn't the case…

        • If NYT is centre-left on a global stage, The Greens are ultra-luxury communists.

          • +1

            @Techie4066:

            If NYT is centre-left on a global stage, The Greens are ultra-luxury communists

            So now that you are aware of this, does it change your original position about the insanity of calling NYT left-wing?

            • @1st-Amendment:

              does it change your original position about the insanity of calling NYT left-wing?

              Nope, because neither are true. Seems you're getting your argumentation all tied up in knots here.

              Exactly why every opinion isn't worth spreading Mr 1st Amendment lol

              • +2

                @Techie4066:

                Seems you're getting your argumentation all tied up in knots here.

                If it seems that way then you need to think about it a little harder…

                • @1st-Amendment: Mmm substantive debate. Gotta love it. Thanks for this enthralling discussion.

                  • +2

                    @Techie4066:

                    Mmm substantive debate.

                    A debate would require you to actually turn up with something other than your unqualified opinion, but leftists very rarely do…

                    • +3

                      @1st-Amendment: Haha slammed. That was fun to read. They never seem to reply, just question your mental state/cognitive abilities etc.

                      • @Ham Dragon: what else can you do but attack someones character when you are trying to argue against or intentionally misrepresent facts?

                        the only thing they're better at is making up word soups so convoluted that no one questions them and people just pretend as if they know what they're talking about, lest they become the focus of the impotent rage.

                        • @[Deactivated]:

                          the only thing they're better at is making up word soups so convoluted that no one questions them and people just pretend as if they know what they're talking about, lest they become the focus of the impotent rage.

                          Example?

                          I have a single comment on this deal with a net downvote. That might speak mounds about your views.

          • @Techie4066: Sounds about right

  • +7

    The finest fakest source of news you’ll find anywhere — just be aware that you’re funding a globalist icon

    • +7

      Is that you, Rupert?

    • +13

      Yeah, if I wanna avoid fake news I go to Murdochworld. So sick of independent news agents. I want to be spoon fed pro-Trump bias while I scream at the tv

  • +4

    Why pay for one pro-Uncle Sam news when there are plenty offering the same everywhere you look?

  • +10

    Considering the quality of most news sites these days - $2/month sounds pretty reasonable. I was Ok with $4/month but I see this as quite decent value.

  • +2

    Worth it for Wordle alone

    • +5

      You mean the free game?

      • But for how long…

        • +1

          For as long as they want people to play it. It's not like there aren't dozens of copy cats out there.

    • +2

      Doesn't it say this doesn't include the online games?

  • +20

    Look beyond the infamously terrible parts and there's some of the world's best feature- and photo- journalism happening there. I get a lot out of my sub.

    • +8

      Chaff to wheat ratio is too high.

    • +1

      I agree with the “look beyond” part. Far, far beyond, to where the truth lives. In Belmarsh Prison, probably

    • -3

      So you're looking past 99% of the content then….

      • +2

        You upvoted the comment above (from the guy who upvoted this deal) thinking it wasn't comedic, enough said LOL

  • +8

    I think it is ok, but … it is so hard to cancel (you have to phone them and they make all sorts of offers and then forget to cancel) unless you pay through paypal where you can cancel through paypal itself. I regularly sign up and then cancel. I don't know why but at least with paypal I can.

    • +2

      It’s a tough cult to leave

    • +3

      You can cancel via live chat.

    • it is so hard to cancel

      @MAGAts

    • +2

      I just cancelled to switch to this cheaper offer. Did it entirely online and took less than a minute.

  • +40

    Wow. A lot of agro in some of these posts.

    Whether you like the politics or not, this is a bargain in the sense of the subscription cost.

    If you don't like the politics, why not just not read it and move on with your lives.

    • -8

      Wow… a voice of moderation. But it’s not yet time to move on until we’re at peace with ourselves. Breathe in, breathe out… slowly.

      Yeah — didn’t work

      • +12

        22 comments on this post and counting - I think it's you that needs to breathe in and out slowly, to be fair.

    • +6

      Agree. There’s a bunch of -ve votes purely based on political preference which I thought was not valid.

      Anyway for my 2c, for all those screaming about NYT being some extreme left propaganda site, it actually rates as centre-left and is factual. Have a look at the Media Bias Check website.

      Compare to our Murdoch dominated newspaper landscape and of course it’s going to look that way. MBC rates The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as “right” and “mixed” factuality. That’s way less factual and more off-centre.

      Links:
      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
      https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-telegraph-australia…

Login or Join to leave a comment