Good for holiday reading.
AU$6 for the first 6 issues (then AU$97.50 every quarter)
I got my first issue today, it arrived via the post, it takes about 2 weeks to process from my experience.
It has been posted on Ozbargain before, but those offers have expired.
Hard copy, not the online edition.
Won't all articles be available for free after a certain period?
This is the hard copy
Lol guardian
Lol mlburnian
LOL, stale meme.
You’re so October. Get with it.
What do you read instead then?
Women's weekly and cosmopolitan for how I can trick my boyfriend into getting pregnant
Your boyfriend is pregnant ??!!
Probably an alt-right Morrison lover who only believes Channel 9, Facebook, LNP and Newscorpse. Looks for content to suit his thoughts and 🙏. No research or critical thinking.
Idols
- Steve Price
- Alan Jones
- Sky News
- Chris Kenny
- George Christiansen
- Andrew Bolt
- Rupert Murdoch
- Fraser Anning
- Tony Abbott (Best Prime Minister Ever)
- Pauline Hanson
Middle aged with franking credits and no Robodebt. Dislikes Labor and Greens with a passion. Believes Adani will bring 1000s of jobs, and believes coal has a FUTURE and the NDIS is going well.
Still blames Labor for how hard life is at the moment and believes the LNP are superior economic managers. Facebook Pages include F"}] off were full and no Sharia Law.
My idol is Jordan Peterson.
alt-right Morrison
Morrison (and the LNP in general) is center-right, no where near alt-right.
with franking credits and no Robodebt
So someone who worked hard and was successful! Why does that make you angry?
believes coal has a FUTURE
Not a long term future, but for the present and medium to long term future it is our only option for reliable power that also allows us to be competitive globally in manufacturing.
blames Labor for how hard life is at the moment
Life has been pretty good since 2013
Why you so mad and judgemental? Why stereotype people?
@PainToad: Mate I am so pissed off at our current government. The lies, ignorance and the deception.
So you are saying someone who works hard and successful?
Congrats well done, don't doubt that you don't. I bet there are a lot of people who work hard 60 plus hours a week in the sun all day. Had some unfortunate events in their lives. Did not have any contacts.
Might have a physical or mental disability. Might not have had the best parents or education. Single mums, stuggling to make ends meet.
The robodebt debacle would have pushed people over the edge with suicide. They say more people kill themselves under the LNP. Some. Of these were also people who would have been very poor at the time, juggling maybe 2 or 3 jobs and at uni full or part time. Government comes along and raids your bank account or tax return.
Solar with battery storage is the cheapest form of electricity. There are so many renewable projects created but there is a massive backlog to connect them to the grid.
Could you imagine if everyone had solar on their rooftops?
More than half of china's coal plants are running at a loss.
These fossil projects are becoming harder to insure and to get funding. This is a worldwide trend.
Germany has the last slab of coal mined in Germany in a frigging museum since 2017. We have Scott Morrison bringing in a lump of coal into parliament for show and tell.
I am glad you are finding it has been great since 2013. There is a scale. You are finding it has been great. Richer get richer, the poorer get poorer.
Wage growth sucks. The more people earn the more prosperity there is. But the LNP says its part of our economic model to give concessions to the rich.
I bet the vast majority of Australians would not share your opinion that it's been great. But if you have any great initiatives that Australians have got from 2013 I would be glad to read them.
It's not good just to read one side of journalism, seek multiple sources and form an opinion on your own.
@Korban Dallas: Mate you’re stereotyping again.
I’m not rich. I’m not saying everyone who’s struggling is lazy and doesn’t deserve support. Please try interacting with conservatives. They’re not all the monsters Left media would want you to believe.
I’m just saying if someone does work/study hard and has a bit of luck, we shouldn’t demonise them and raid their bank accounts.
Looks for content to suit his thoughts and 🙏. No research or critical thinking.
Sounds more like a guardian mind control victim actually. ;-p
You managed to derive some pretty specific information about them from that one-liner lol
Wow, project much?
He probably looks to right wing nutters and radio shock jocks to guide him.
Wonder if this will get bashed for being biased like how conservative biased news outlets get bashed on here.
Why the vote down? I didn’t neg the deal. I admitted conservative media can be biased, surely whoever voted me down is mature enough to admit this outlet is biased sometimes too on the other side of politics?
It's not even the bias, it's the incredibly poorly written, racist, sexist 'opinion' pieces which they have the guts to publish.
Bias I can handle… But the mindless NONSENSE the guardian spews is ridiculous. A few years ago I didn't even understand what 'right' and 'left' was… All I knew was I kept getting guardian articles served up during my web searches, when looking for facts/truth/news about something that interested me. I soon learned to ignore links to guardian articles, because EVERY SINGLE TIME without fail, I found they're living in some alternate reality. Someone would do good - the guardian would say it was bad - while producing zero evidence, or outright lies in place of it. Simple fact checks on other sites would produce facts, evidence, reality - the guardian was just some weird, esoteric (usually toxic) - opinion.
They're an absolute joke in the journalistic world. And it's THEM proved to me, through their warped view of what seems to be - everything - that literally nothing they say can be trusted. Further than that, after giving them chance after chance, I would now say if the guardian says something is this, then it's really that. I'd read things in their articles, article very thin on facts, so I'd go check those facts - and in seconds find not only a mountain of truth elsewhere, but reality was the exact opposite. i.e. They're either deliberate liars, or brainwashed nutters. Or perhaps both.
Links to some of these articles please.
It was 2017. I don't recall the subjects I was looking up. Just go to their site, fact-check the first 5 articles you see (without picking and choosing), and the same pattern will reveal itself. I wouldn't bother trying to show someone really. When people brainwashed ala-guardian-style call for facts, you show them facts, then they say facts don't matter and choose to believe fantasy regardless. Facts, reality, don't matter to them. Belief (they're religion) does and no fact can penetrate the darkness.
It's funny how someone listed a bunch of 'right' news sources here, like it was some 'hall of infamy' - like you're what the left actually are, by watching some of those sites/people - when they are simply stating facts, real research, reality etc. Why is it funny? Because 'news' outlets like the guardian are losing readership, laying off staff, and closing their doors - while the other people and business on that supposed 'mock list' are surging.
@GregMonarch: Yeah, so no evidence, just feels and vague memories. Sounds like you just don’t agree with their political point of view. I haven’t even posted my political view and you’re labelling and accusing me. Speaks volumes.
And news media in general is dying, Newscorp have been laying off staff everywhere.
@Randolph Duke: Sorry, I didn't get any notification of your comments for some reason!?
I couldn't care less about politics. I just don't agree with intellectual dishonesty or outright lies. I don't want to hear twisted biases, commentary, from news sources - just facts. Then I'll make up my own mind. The problem is however, sources like the guardian simply can't present facts without also skewing them to their own deranged biases.
As for news media dying… For lack of a better example, let's take this as an example of the kind of half-baked truth some place like the guardian would report, to train their readers to use that same pattern of thinking in everyday life. That is, while it's true newspapers, TV news, etc. has been losing eyeballs for quite some time now:
a) The rate of eyeball exodus has never been greater until after 2016 when they decided they hated that Trump guy… and,
b) As I obviously meant, I was referring to the fact the ones considered 'left' are dying a more accelerated death.
A partial example popped up in my youtube sugestions the other day… See this, from about 4m55s onwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smox-CrVC9w
Like I said - it's just an example because I have no current ones from the guardian, due to them driving me away some time ago through their whacky view of reality. It's just an example to show there's well-rounded reality, but then there's the kind of skewed view the guardian wants to infect people with. (Regarding the exodus of eyeballs, the guardian would say: "Oh, but we're ALL losing eyeballs." Thus trying to imply the guardian isn't any worse-off than xyz, when they're losing far more than 'the right'.)
Everyone has their own bias. But everything I clicked on from the guardian, presented limited 'facts', an unhealthy amount of personal bias, and/or often omitted facts, and/or just plain lies (which only became obvious by clicking another link to find genuine facts had been strangely omitted by the guardian).
The most mild form of their bias is still intellectual dishonesty. And no-one likes being lied to - particularly if you're paying for it - thus why 'left' organisations are dying off faster. Facts don't support their bias, but they continue it even as their revenue plummets. So be it. It's better liars with personal agendas find another vocation anyway.
@GregMonarch: Why are you arguing only about the Guardian? Need Corp cutting jobs over the past 10 years has been widely reported. Fairfax too.
Here’s News Corp for the last 3 years alone.
https://amp.smh.com.au/business/companies/news-corp-to-cut-5…
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/news-corp-…
https://amp.theguardian.com/media/2017/apr/11/news-corp-aust…
That you keep saying only the left lies means you’re as biased as they come, Trump’s the biggest bs artist out of all of them.
Why are you arguing only about the Guardian?
"The Guardian Weekly $1 a Week for for 6 Weeks (Normally $10.95/Issue) @ The Guardian"
I already said elsewhere here that 'the right' media is suffering LESS lost eyeballs. Why are you changing what I said to fit what you want me to have said?
That you keep saying only the left lies…
Cease putting words in my mouth. Leave that to leftist whack-jobs in the media who love to constantly put words in his. ;-D
Seriously, I'm certain the people that hate Trump are either: a) gullible and bleat things back simply because they hear it constantly and are stupid or lazy, or b) they genuinely hate the fact less people are suffering in poverty, have more jobs, being freed from government nanny-state oppression, but most of all - that common sense is making a comeback.
He's literally done nothing wrong - about anything. EVERYTHING they whine about, either Obama, Bush, Clinton, did the same or worse (like whole 'the kids in cages' lie - the photos which were from Obama's presidency). Or like this laughable non-issue Ukraine phone call they're screeching about - when Biden & his son are the real quid-pro-quo blackmailers.
The ONLY real thing they've ever had on the guy (for those who actually check facts) is his 'kitty-in-the-motorhome' comment. Pffft… Is that it!? Anyone - man or woman - who says they haven't said stuff just like that or worse about someone when they thought no-one was listening, is not worth including in your circle of associates, because they're dishonest, having just lied to your face.
It means literally nothing. The whining tools should have a look at how Hillary treated the women her husband raped/molested/rubbed himself on/cheated with. Or how she smashed her phones and wiped her HDD after receiving a court subpoena. How she ignored and abandoned diplomats to die over in Benghazi. Hillary paying for her pee-pee dossier (which it's now looking like Obama was involved with too)…
You know, some corruption that ACTUALLY DID happen, rather than what amounts to less than someone showing off in private about what star-struck goldiggers would probably ALLOW IF you tried.
People think because they hear this nonsense on TV/in papers, that it must be true. Anyone that believes the mainstream media is either ignorant or thick as 22 planks. Those journalists aren't interested in journalism… They're just stooges pushing the agenda of their CEO/owner to sell advertising - and shouldn't be believed any longer.
@GregMonarch: I’ve wasted enough of my life trying to reason with Trump supporters, so blind to the cult of personality there’s no point continuing the discussion. I mean, your condoning sexual assault like everyone does it. Enjoy r/TheDonald
@Randolph Duke: Oh, and:
a) There WAS no 'sexual assault'. At best you could claim he's 'guilty' of 'hurty words'. Money-hungry scrubbers will seek out and allow virtually anything for some $$$ or fame. THAT is the only point he was making. But don't let reality in, ok?
b) Meanwhile, I see you completely ignore the rest of what I said about the Clintons. It seems your cult requires firmly riveting blinders on to the multiple and REAL sexual assaults of rapey Bill, but also the abuse heaped upon his victims by his hypocritalk wife (who meanwhile rakes in $$$ for speaking at '#metoo' meetings - where she says, 'We have to believe and support woman who claim they've been abused.' What a joke.
Facts are what matters. The left/most of the media/people that hate Trump/etc. are repulsed by real facts until after they've turned them into half-truths to fabricate a completely different situation that never happened.
@GregMonarch: Also calling utter bs on not knowing left and right, although anyone debating in such definitive ways can generally be ignored - views are far more complicated than “left” or “right” (although that’s hard to tell with brainless cheerleaders from both sides)
@Randolph Duke: Oh, so I'm lying!? LOL. Why bother - am I earning $$$ somehow from it? No, I didn't know what 'left' and 'right' wing meant - not until late 2016 at least, until I saw the utter nonsense begin to spew forth over the ONE politician who actually began DOING what he promised, and which the citizens of every (western nation at least) has been begging and wishing for their entire lives (but who never realistically expected they're actually get).
That drew a firm line down the middle, when it became obvious what 'left' and 'right' was, which I'd never seen before.
@GregMonarch: Trump supporter, makes sense. Impressive that according to you he appealed to every citizen of the US by losing the popular vote. May want to cut back on your dear leaders style rhetoric. He’s nothing I want in a leader.
I’ll give him one thing, that he managed to convince people he was an everyday man after inheriting a large fortune and managed to give his billionaire mates a tax cut, only to be cheered on by the people who will be most affected by a loss of welfare, is impressive.
Reality/truth/fact - supporter.
I've seen a video - with those inconvenient things called facts (actual numbers) - that show he DID win the popular vote. And no I don't remember where it is, but I know it would never be found on the deranged propaganda you seem to feed on. I couldn't care less about all this really, except to say all this proves what I said at the start about facts. The left hates them and either hides them or lies to change them into something completely different that never happened.
Even if he didn't 'win the popular vote' - so what, who cares. He's in because that's how their voting system works, right? So you do realise it would work the other way too, yeah? i.e. They had no problem with their system when it worked in their favour. They only spout this nonsense claim now because their candidate didn't win. And… If they did change the system, and then LOST because of it - guess what - they'd start whining to change it back again, LOL!
@GregMonarch: Just on point 2 - this is easily verifiable on the US government website (but I’m sure your conspiracy video railing again the Left and MSM was super believable)
https://transition.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.p…
I made no comment on if the electoral system was right or wrong.
Enjoy your day.
@GregMonarch: I just picked up this week’s copy of the Guardian Weekly and haven’t found any factual errors in the first 10 pages.
The website articles are a bit more woke and clickbaity, but that’s how internet news websites work. They need to get your attention.
That’s why I get my news in print form. Nobody is collecting metrics on which page of the newspaper gets the most eyeballs and promoting outrage stories to the top. The most important stories lead, and the partisan opinion stuff that is so popular on the websites gets buried towards the back.
@[Deactivated]: Well, I would find it absolutely amazing if their hardcopy articles are accurate and based on facts, when their online articles are toxic nonsense based on preconceived dishonest bias, but ok.
News reporting by the Guardian is generally tinged with reality, the opinion pieces are just an attempt at brainwashing. Luckily most of us are adults and can think for themselves
The Guardian Weekly isn’t that biased really. It has a focus on international news, so unless you have a really partisan stance on the crisis in Bolivia, or actually believe Bolsonaro when he says Leonardo DiCaprio lit the Amazon fires, you’re probably not going to find too much to be outraged about.
They even had an article last week about how the UK Labour campaign is going off the rails because everyday Brits hate Corbyn with such passion. Hardly left-wing-bubble stuff.
I’m pretty much in the centre of the political spectrum, and while there may be one article per issue I roll my eyes at, the rest is pretty solid journalism.
Sure, I mean they only broke what was probably the most important story of modern times (Snowden revelations into government surveillance, something that affects us all and that we should all care about) for which they won a Pulitzer. But I mean that was probably propaganda right? Out of interest, what do you consider a quality news outlet?
Yeah and many right wing sites have won Pulitzer as well.
There are no quality news sites left majority of good ones get bought up and told to follow an agenda and if they resist they get violently attacked or don't have the resources to push out the 24/7 articles.
Long is gone the month long investigation.
Guardian is utter trash like fox, CNN and Australian
I'm interested, which "right wing sites" have won a Pulitzer for public service with stories as important as the Snowden revelations? Would love some examples.
@el_cheapo: There will never be a conservative winner of a Pulitzer. It is judged by the left. There have been plenty of deserving conservatives in the past but they don't get a look in. Pulitzer won't even recall awards given to journalists who's stories have been later proven to be full of deception.
That means nothing. I watched a Snowden interview and he's a firm leftist, with some of the things he said easily-proven to be nonsense. So it's only natural he would go to a leftist [cough] news outlet. Additionally, awards no longer mean anything. e.g. Obama was given the nobel peace prize for 'bringing people together' - but murdered more civilians using bombs than any president before him, LOL.
A quality news outlet serves up facts with as little preconceived bias as possible. The guardian begins with a crazy bias, then omits the facts, and often doesn't even bother to insert new ones - they just present articles as if their skewed reality (fantasy) is the only 'real' reality, and call you an idiot if you point out facts prove them liars.
You haven't actually given any examples of what you consider to be nonsensical or biased reporting by The Guardian - just indignant assertions that they are doing it.
just indignant assertions that they are doing it.
So I have the desirable work ethic for a job at the guardian or buzzfeed then, LOL? ;-p
Some above are saying the guardian in print is much better than their online stuff. I wouldn't know, because as I said, every one of their online articles I clicked on in 2017 were nonsense or outright lies. They themselves guaranteed I would never pay for anything they produced.
I watched a Snowden interview and he's a firm leftist
Yeah I think he'd have to be to make the sacrifice he's made. That doesn't make what he's revealed any less true. Most of what he's said had been verified.
@idonotknowwhy: My point was, snowden chose where to take his revelations. It wasn't due to any amazing cutting-edge journalism the guardian did.
What would you suggest we read then?
A wide variety of sources. Google News is good for not relying on a single source that maybe pushing an agenda left or right.
So instead of reading one trash news source read the same story repeatedly on multiple trash news sources.
The mainstream media has almost completely failed to the point that people are better off not consuming it.
@Diji1: What do you read then?
I've stated trying to read the news again recently after a nearly 5 year break and am finding it's all one-sided outrage.
Financial review seems a bit better.
Edit: oh and news.com.au and the age can absolutely get (profanity) for their auto-play videos.
@idonotknowwhy: Ultimately all you can do is keep a broad mind and read a variety of different opinions and collate them.
The Age
Guardian
Herald Sun
Australian
ABC
There will always be different agendas pushed by different news outlets. The reality is the only news people will want to read is the news that appeals to their values
@idonotknowwhy: For an unbiased news source, Reuters or AP are really the only options. They have to be neutral and objective because they basically sell the news articles to other sources, which then alter it to be appealing for their target audience.
Reuters
Thanks, I had a look earlier today. This is exactly what I was looking for. They appear to just be reporting facts.
Is there an Australian equivalent?
@idonotknowwhy: Try this: https://www.reuters.com/places/australia
However they generally only report major stories so it might seem limited. Personally I like the ABC and I believe it's the most objective in Australia but I'm aware some people feel differently to me
OzBargain classifieds
Well, anything except the guardian would be a good start. They're the last place I'd go for truth/reality. I'd read their online articles and it was THEM that proved to me time and again they were lying/omitting/fantacising, trying to create an alternate reality.
I had no idea what 'left' and 'right' was back then - but I did learn if I read it in a guardian article, the truth was probably the exact opposite. I made it a game to begin with… i.e. If a guardian link came up, I'd read it, and assume the opposite was true - then I'd check, and surprise - the facts proved them liars. After a while it became highly irritating - no-one wants to read lies and later be embarrassed during discussions when you discover you've been lied to by a supposed 'news' source.
After seeing that consistent pattern dozens of times I switched to avoiding guardian articles entirely - because they proven to me I'd never get the truth with them - and often no facts either - just some weird alternate-reality biased opinion based on previous tired biased opinions.
The ABC is a good alternative
a deal was posted for The Daily Wire last week. Pipe down
and people neg voted there too. Pipe down
I agree that the Guardian is left wing propaganda.
But it's not a valid use of a negative vote.
A deal's a deal, even if you personally do not like the product, or would not buy the product.
E.g. it's not valid to neg a deal for Coke, just because you like Pepsi & hate Coke.
Is this going to be heated like that Sky News deal? :(
Actually, they have run promotions like this for many years. Long before the "pay what you want" vs pay wall models of media business were relevant. Much like most major newspapers.
because lefties are poor uni students and dole bludgers
Yet the liberals are constantly throwing money down the drain.
They are forced to beg for donations because they are competing with the same left wing agenda driven drivel dispensed by The ABC, who get over $1Billion taxpayer dollars every year.
Very true, embarrassing nonetheless. ABC get about $1.5b but still run ads and clickbait titles on their YouTube to get some extra revenue.
Ah yes, The Australian, which hasn't been profitable since the eighties. Rupert's vanity project.
I'll stick to Sky News and The Australian
And I'll keep thinking you're a brainwashed fool. I'd think the same if you were reading The Guardian as though it wasn't trash.
I can think of quite a few lefty opinion presenters that are on Sky, or write for The Oz
Former presenter
- Kristina Keneally
Sure they are outnumbered by conservatives, but at least they are given time to get their opinions across. Something that conservatives don't get on the ABC, The Guardian or Channel 9 Press.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously if you use PVO as an example of a lefty journalist. The bloke worked as an advisor for Howard and Abbott.
Amanda Vanstone and Tom Switzer both have regular slots on the ABC. Nine gives Alan Jones a platform among a plethora of others. The guardian has less regular conservatives but they get one off pieces every now and then.
@twjr: Well, everyone on the Oz hates Peter one way or another! The comments on that newspaper are often quite fowl
They don't impose a firewall so that even the bigoted idiots can read it and post in their below-the-lines. What you call "begging" is actually "supporting".
Pay wall.
Thanks for posting!
Not a deal because it doesn't meet your one-eyed politics? Sheesh, some bigo… people. Good reason for a +
Look at the posts for other papers here in the past, and you also get people voting deals down based on the perceived political bias of the product.
Sad to say both sides think its clever, so now its all a tit for tat started when?
Unfortunately many think their vote on a "bargain" will convince people to vote in elections.
Move on please…. next bargain!
Well, in the case of the guardian, it's tit for tit. But we get your meaning. ;-D
Lol at the couple sooks in here.
Good grief.
You should see how much people sook when a conservative outlet is posted.
I saw the sky news deal, that was every bit as ridiculous.
the socialist workers propaganda wing,
And thank (profanity) they are! Right or wrong, at least there's one voice out there that's not owned by Rupert (profanity) Murdoch
In the good old days it was called Pravda. There is no offcial Communist Party in Australia because the Communists because it isn't needed; the Communists won a long time ago.
How have the communists won? Last time I checked both major parties ran neoliberal platforms, heavy on privatisation of wealth and socialisation of debt.
That’s the Morning Star.
The Guardian is for more academic types who feel sorry for the workers, and would do something to help if only they weren’t so busy with work and getting through the latest Booker Prize winner.
Same as this one
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/501459
If you believe in free speech both are ok / rubbish. Doesn’t matter
Junk journalism.
which journalism is not junk? seriously want to know.
Reuters is good and unbiased
One of my favourite deals