New York Times All Access Subscription (Single Login) A$20 for First Year (Ongoing A$180/Year) @ New York Times

694
New York Times All Access Subscription (Single Login) A$20 for First Year (Ongoing A$180/Year) @ New York Times
Go to Deal
Lt Cole on 24/06/2026 - 23:04 nytimes.com (1076 clicks)
Last edited 04/08/2026 - 10:08 by 2 other users

After subscribing, consider cancelling so as to avoid an 'accidental' A$180/Yr charge for a roll-over subscription.

Other Sale options are:
All Access (1 person) - weekly - A$0.50/week for first year (billed as A$2 every four weeks), then A$25/week
All Access Family (1-4 people) - annual - A$40 / year, then A$240
All Access Family - weekly - A$1/week for first year (billed as A$4 every four weeks), then A$30/week

Please note the roll-over price-shock risks, and further risk not cancelling the weekly option (billed monthly) at the optimal time.

for existing subscribers, it appears that if you take this deal it will NOT run sequentially from the expiry of your current subscription. It will instantly charge and probably will instantly start (anyone with a short period left on a sub who wants to test, please PM / comment and I'll update).

Books & Magazines Newspaper Subscription

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times

Comments

Old
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • HelloGood on 24/06/2026 - 23:27

    They decides what readers can see. Pro ethics no longer a limit.

    • 4
    • dangerdanger on 24/06/2026 - 23:36

      Any non-biased (left or right) news outlets out there?

      • 2
      • constantinechou on 24/06/2026 - 23:44

        Global Times.

        • 2
        • R4 on 24/06/2026 - 23:45

          lol!

          I like your sense of humour!

          • 2
        • Lt Cole on 24/06/2026 - 23:47

          Press TV

          • 2
        • FujinShu on 25/06/2026 - 05:05

          Probably better than fox news at this point lol

          • 0
      • HelloGood on 24/06/2026 - 23:50

        Sadly few pure, unbiased news reporters remain these days. However, the NYT is NOT one."Henry Nowak" is a revealing mirror.

        • 12
        • BestTechAdvisor on 25/06/2026 - 07:31

          Wow, this story is horrible.

          • 1
          • Bdawg on 25/06/2026 - 08:53

            @BestTechAdvisor: The beginning of the end for the UK.

            • -2
            • BestTechAdvisor on 25/06/2026 - 08:56

              @Bdawg: The beginning of the end of the UK was US lend-lease in WW2.

              • 0
              • Big L on 25/06/2026 - 15:28

                @BestTechAdvisor: The beginning of the end was not spending on defence after WWI, leaving them exposed. If lend-lease hadn't had been offered, they (and the colonies) would have been cactus a long time before the seppos showed up. The UK sent bills for lend-lease to the colonies that never signed up or received the armaments, so screw them for that too.

                • 0
                • BestTechAdvisor on 25/06/2026 - 16:11

                  @Big L:

                  If lend-lease hadn't had been offered, they (and the colonies) would have been cactus a long time before the seppos showed up.

                  The Seppos should've shown up without charging for it like the opportunists they are. The British showed up for Poland without any intent of sending them a bill for it later.

                  Better part of a century later and the States haven't changed. Still, we show up for them constantly. I look forward to the day the Australian Government grows a spine.

                  • -2
                  • Big L on 25/06/2026 - 16:32

                    @BestTechAdvisor: If the UK didn't demoralise Germany after WWI with the Marseille treaty, WWII wouldn't have happened.

                    If they had have re-armed themselves, it wouldn't have happened.

                    If they had have enforced the treaty instead of letting Hitler build warships and submarines, as well as re-militarisation in 1935, it wouldn't have happened.

                    If they didn't allow the Nazi's to occupy near the French border, it wouldn't have happened.

                    If they had have made any effort or protest against the annexation of Austria, it mightn't have happened.

                    The British gave away Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's, Europe's best industrialised country including making the Czechs leave their armaments behind the Nazis.

                    Globally, no-one wanted a war because they'd mostly been involved in the horror of WWI, and that included the USA and Australia. But you want to blame the US for not jumping to either save Europe again or back the UK in another bloody war, especially after doing nothing for themselves.

                    If you're wishing for spine growth, don't look to the UK.

                    • 0
                    • BestTechAdvisor on 25/06/2026 - 20:06

                      @Big L:

                      If the UK didn't demoralise Germany after WWI with the Marseille treaty, WWII wouldn't have happened.

                      The demoralisation of Germany at the Treaty of Versailles was mostly by France. The Brits mostly argued against overt punishing Germany, as did the US… but the US were in the room, and they (Wilson) actually argued for taking then-Germany's New Guinea and giving it to Japan. That would've been great in WW2. Luckily, Australia did have a backbone at the time.

                      When Wilson said Australia had only a population (therefore our opinion is irrelevant) Prime Minister Billy Hughes replied:

                      "I speak for 60,000 dead. How many do you speak for?"

                      Because the US, again, was late to WW1.

                      If they had have re-armed themselves, it wouldn't have happened.

                      Fair, but undermines your later point that the British didn't have a spine. How did they not have a spine if they were out-gunned yet still showed up to honour a publicly-unknown treaty to defend Poland from Germany?

                      If they had have enforced the treaty instead of letting Hitler build warships and submarines, as well as re-militarisation in 1935, it wouldn't have happened.

                      Didn't you just say the British caused WW2 by demoralising Germany? Anglo-German Naval Agreement 1935

                      If they didn't allow the Nazi's to occupy near the French border, it wouldn't have happened. If they had have made any effort or protest against the annexation of Austria, it mightn't have happened. The British gave away Czechoslovakia to the Nazi's, Europe's best industrialised country including making the Czechs leave their armaments behind the Nazis. Globally, no-one wanted a war because they'd mostly been involved in the horror of WWI, and that included the USA and Australia.

                      Not sure what point you're trying to make here. These are all strategic failures, but none of them were the "beginning of the end of the UK" that we were originally discussing, nor are they evidence of the UK having behaved like the US did (and still does, and almost always has, because the US is just a business).

                      But you want to blame the US for not jumping to either save Europe again

                      Again? America didn't save Europe the first time around. They made the defeat so clearly inevitable that Germany came to the table sooner, sure, but are you aware of what happened at Hamel?

                      I also never blamed the US for not joining the war earlier. I blamed the US for war profiteering and opportunism, like it always does. Like it tried to do in Iran, but it backfired.

                      or back the UK in another bloody war, especially after doing nothing for themselves. If you're wishing for spine growth, don't look to the UK.

                      The UK did plenty for themselves, and for the rest of Europe. It's an indefensible position to claim otherwise. The UK didn't have to fight Germany. Hitler didn't want to fight the Brits. The UK could've let Germany push East, but they didn't. They didn't just sit by and profiteer like the Americans did either. They fought Germany in Europe for over a year practically alone because they were true allies.

                      If the Brits behaved like the States do towards their "allies" then the Brits would've refused to pay the lend lease after the war, just like the Americans refused to pay back the French and Spanish for loans during the rebellion, or like the States refused a marginal stamp duty to help pay for the defence of the Americas from the French and Spanish in a war that George Washington triggered… opportunistic traitor.

                      Anyway, while I genuinely enjoy these armchair historian debates, I don't have the time for them these days, so I'm going to leave it here. I'll be interested to see your retort, but I won't counter. Have a great weekend!

                      • 0
                      • 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2026 - 06:20

                        @BestTechAdvisor:

                        If the Brits behaved like the States do towards their "allies" then the Brits…

                        Then maybe the UK would still be a superpower and not crumbling towards self-destruction.

                        Survival of the fittest, no amount of wishing this away will make it so. You can argue over details, but the outcome speaks for itself. The UK has gone from the largest empire the word as ever seen, to a crumbling mess in just 80 years, so it turns out that being a charity is not a great strategy for survival. The US, China and Russia understand the game, this is why we are aligning with winners instead of losers.

                        • 0
                      • Big L on 26/06/2026 - 09:49

                        @BestTechAdvisor: Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.

                        I agree that the only wars the US show up on time for is the ones that they start. They've never been a country to fight for morality and humanity, it's always been for their own ends.

                        However, pretending that the UK fought for those reasons against Hitler would be a stretch. The same reason that the UK declared war was a large part of why the US didn't; that Hitler would eventually take the UK. We now know that he didn't intend to.

                        I'm assuming from your other educated comments that you're aware that congress wouldn't enter the war therefore the only way open for Roosevelt to offer arms was through a payment scheme? If that didn't exist, the war would be lost.

                        The US and Australia came to terms on our lend lease agreement in 1946 with terms that we were thrilled with (Fulbright). Yet the UK sent us a bill anyway for our fighting in Europe.

                        Your assertion is the US are immoral profiteering bastards, mine is that it's the UK. Perhaps it's both.

                        • 1
                  • 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2026 - 06:04

                    @BestTechAdvisor:

                    Still, we show up for them constantly.

                    And you can't figure out why that is can you…

                    I look forward to the day the Australian Government grows a spine.

                    So your grand plan is for a small country to venture out into the shark infested waters of high stakes geopolitics without a safety net.
                    Leave this to the experts kid…

                    • 0
                    • BestTechAdvisor on 26/06/2026 - 07:15

                      @1st-Amendment: Not a single reference to any real historical facts, just a bunch of vapid ideas you've learnt from American propaganda

                      Then maybe the UK would still be a superpower and not crumbling towards self-destruction.

                      😂 the irony

                      So your grand plan is for a small country to venture out into the shark infested waters of high stakes geopolitics without a safety net. Leave this to the experts kid…

                      No, I want to follow what the strategic experts say and not be dependent on a power that's crumbling towards self-destruction.

                      Especially a power that threatens to invade its allies, openly states it won't honour alliances (be that NATO, AUKUS, ANZUS, etc), doesn't warn allies when it's starting wars, and starts trade wars with its allies… and can't win a real war (just like China and Russia).

                      A good book on the topic is How To Defend Australia by Hugh White.

                      The UK US has gone from the largest being an empire the word as ever seen, to a crumbling mess in just 80 25 years, so it turns out that being a charity grub is not a great strategy for survival.

                      • 1
      • CWsniffa on 25/06/2026 - 02:33

        insidestory dot org dot au. No news perse but an online magazine for Australian politics amongst other things. Literally the only sane people you will reliably find talking on political issues in this country.

        • 3
        • seabombs on 25/06/2026 - 08:58

          Thanks for sharing, looks quite good!

          • 1
          • CWsniffa on 26/06/2026 - 12:51

            @seabombs: I creamed my pants when I found it. I found it of all places looking at sources after talking to AI about politics — don't worry, I don't talk to AI anymore.

            It was a story on Liberalism and the liberal party. After the loss last election.

            • 1
      • The Fat Cat on 25/06/2026 - 04:09

        Your best bet would be this aggregator that scores news articles

        https://ground.news/

        • 3
        • zagadka on 25/06/2026 - 06:32

          But avoid the r/worldnews “aggregator” because it is very pro Israel. If you post or comment anything criticising Israel in any way then the r/worldnews mods are likely to permanently ban you.

          • 1
          • StranJer on 25/06/2026 - 07:56

            @zagadka: From my experience, they are just less biased.. I like them.

            • 0
          • tightm8 on 25/06/2026 - 09:17

            @zagadka: Proudly banned from there because I literally said 'Israel isn't doing itself any good killing kids even if they're going after the H guys'

            You look at the front page there, it's literally just reposts of J Post, Times of Israel, Yt News with sprinkled in sources from India (which is the location many people suspect Israeli govt uses to hire bots).

            • 1
      • nope on 25/06/2026 - 06:13

        It's not possible to be unbiased; that is a fiction peddled by people who want to hide their agenda.

        It sounds like you're asking for an outlet that shares your politics, which is definitely not the same thing.

        • 3
      • zagadka on 25/06/2026 - 06:23

        The general recommendation is something with more of a financial focus like the Wall Street Journal or the Financial Times

        But they are also biased of course. Everything is.

        • 1
        • Jackson on 25/06/2026 - 09:15

          Laughable that the WSJ would be considered by anyone as less biased than the NYT, which itself is biased, but at least tries to pretend it's not

          • -2
          • Be careful on 25/06/2026 - 12:02

            @Jackson: When they are focused on money they care less about left/right wing or pro/anti Israel. It’s about where to make money..

            • 0
            • Jackson on 26/06/2026 - 01:25

              @Be careful: Depends on the topic, for example when it comes to basic reporting on specific businesses theres less reason for bias in writing, if one widget producer performed less successfully then another it can be talked about realitively freely. The issues come up when reporting on politically charged topics, like government regulation or foreign affairs. In these cases the WSJ is as bad or potentially worse than the NYT. Quote from a story linked below, this is some pretty off the scale stuff for both outlets:

              "A Feb. 2, 2024, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal described a Michigan city, where many Arab immigrants live, as a center of antisemitic terrorism sympathizers. On the same day, another op-ed in The New York Times depicted the U.S. as a lion engaged in combat with Iran – characterized as a “parasitoid wasp” – and Hamas – portrayed as a “trap-door spider,” executing rapid, predatory maneuvers. The pieces were attacked by critics as being Islamaphobic and falling back on racist tropes"

              https://theconversation.com/bias-hiding-in-plain-sight-decad…

              • 0
          • Big L on 25/06/2026 - 15:43

            @Jackson: It's not laughable, it's a riot! 😂

            • 0
      • serpserpserp on 25/06/2026 - 09:08

        Guardian?

        • 1
        • Trentgibbo3 on 25/06/2026 - 12:16

          They usually have a high fact check rate but are definitely left bias.

          • 3
      • mailbox on 25/06/2026 - 09:10

        I like checking into michaelwest every now and again. Their news is basically the AAP Newswire service but their stories at the moment are a mix of criticisms depending on the authors.

        • 0
        • Big L on 25/06/2026 - 15:44

          I agree, but concerning for me is that nothing is an opinion piece. When I check the CV of the writer, it's sometimes obvious where their bias lies.

          • 1
      • 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2026 - 05:59

        Any non-biased (left or right) news outlets out there?

        Why do you feel the need to consume this guff? FOMO?

        Try switching off and see how much happier you are.

        • 0
    • Chris17 on 25/06/2026 - 07:10

      The Economist is probably as close as you’ll get to centrist.

      • -4
      • Be careful on 25/06/2026 - 12:03

        Definitely not centrist. Great coverage but a distinct bias. Pro British, pro immigration, pro Ukraine, pro arms industry. Once y allow for the bias though it’s got the best in depth world coverage u can find.

        • -4
        • Chris17 on 27/06/2026 - 10:50

          ‘Pro-Ukraine’? You mean not parroting Putin’s talking points in support of a genocidal war of aggression? That’s an interesting take.

          • -1
  • Jackson on 24/06/2026 - 23:45

    NYT had leaked internal editorial memos that instructed reporters to restrict the use of terms like "genocide," "ethnic cleansing," "occupied territory," and "Palestine" in their Gaza coverage

    They also published verified lies about sexual violence on October 7, even after they were verified, and did not print any retractions.

    Their coverage has also disproportionately favoured Israel over Palestine, with all the usual issues that involved the humanisation of Israeli casualties while Palestinian ones are statistics or "died" as opposed to being killed. There's been some decent reporting from them otherwise but their editors are clearly biased and have faced backlash from many of their staff about the clear bias.

    • 3
      • Jackson on 25/06/2026 - 00:05

        So when Israel refuses access to international human rights agencies, you can make up your own commission. It's another case of Israel policing itself. This is blatant propaganda.

        • 14
      • StarGrapper on 25/06/2026 - 00:09

        It is fun to see that people still fighting for lies when the head of the officials already apologised for the lies and (intentional) inaccuracies of their reports.. isn't there any water left in your face to worry about?! Too bad!!

        • 3
    • sutiive on 25/06/2026 - 13:01

      "My truth is the real truth and everyone else's truth is a lie"

      • Everyone, ever.
      • -1
    • Storm2027 on 25/06/2026 - 17:19

      Let me know when your 'Queers for Palestine' buddies have visited, and not been sent back to Australia in coffins by Hamas!!

      • -3
      • StarGrapper on 25/06/2026 - 19:25

        Watch your mouth!!! Such Israeli sucker!!

        • 0
  • zfind on 25/06/2026 - 00:00

    Archive.md all day. Especially if they’re denying genocide. No money for you.

    • 0
    • Anthonese on 25/06/2026 - 00:06

      This, or the Bypass Paywalls Chrome/Firefox extension which has the added benefit of working for other tricky news sites (e.g WSJ) for which archive.is doesn’t.

      • 2
    • Psomaggi on 25/06/2026 - 09:51

      I'm not taking one side or another here. I have no vested interest - call me heartless, a monster, naive a luddite. I just focus on the world around me. And bargains.

      But the term genocide is a legal determination made by the International Court of Justice. That determination has not been made. I don't think there is any doubt that some of the acts which amount to a finding of genocide have occurred, but any news outlet which is using the term genocide at this point is doing so emotively rather than factually.

      We say we want the media to report the truth, but complain when it's not our version of it.

      • -2
      • freefall101 on 25/06/2026 - 11:40

        Using this logic, there was no genocide in Rwanda. The ICJ didn't say squat about it (the UN did though).

        What is true is that Israel hasn't been found guilty of genocide. However, to claim that genocide hasn't happened simply because Israel hasn't been found guilty is a totally different thing. We say that someone is accused of murder until they are found guilty, however we don't say that the murder has never happened. It is a genocide, that is factually true, there is mass relocation, large numbers of deaths focused on a specific people, the mass destruction of infrastructure that doesn't have a natural cause. Whether the guilty party is the Israeli government, the Israeli military or someone else, they're innocent until proven guilty. But to deny genocide is a whole different kettle of fish.

        Dunno what that makes you, probably just someone trying to play semantics and doing a pretty bad job of it.

        • 1
      • zfind on 25/06/2026 - 11:42

        We knew the Nazis had committed genocide before the Nuremberg Trials condemned the perpetrators. Sometimes it’s ok to call something what it is. The office of the high commissioner for human rights in the UN has already firmly labelled it genocide. There’s other agencies too.

        Appreciate your calm reply and hope mine doesn’t come across as charged either.

        Also want to add for Ukraine that genocide has been carried out by Russia against them too and I hope that they get justice and their stolen children are returned home and stolen land returned.

        • -1
      • Be careful on 25/06/2026 - 12:06

        So no genocide in the holocaust?

        • -2
        • Psomaggi on 25/06/2026 - 20:11

          The ICJ have recognised the atrocities of the holocaust as genocide.

          • 1
      • Big L on 25/06/2026 - 16:03

        https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n25/221/33/pdf/n25221…

        15 member countries have backed South Africa's case claiming that Israel's actions in Gaza are genocidal in nature.

        Take a look, and you'll see that the ICJ have stated:

        January 2024: The ICJ ruled there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. It ordered Israel to prevent acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention, prevent incitement, and allow basic services and humanitarian assistance.

        March & May 2024: Following worsening conditions, the court issued additional orders directing Israel to take all necessary measures to ensure unhindered provision of urgently needed humanitarian services, including opening more land crossing points.

        The UN have said that Israel have been undertaking 4 of the 5 acts considered genocidal, including deliberately killing children:

        https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies…

        Here's the current update of the ICJ case. It will take years to get to a verdict, if there ever is one. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/192

        My view is that if the shoe were on the other foot, the same things would be occurring. But it's not. Israel was attacked by Hamas including rape, torture and murder; Israel have responded with war crimes and genocide.

        • 0
  • unfinishedsentenc on 25/06/2026 - 00:05

    anyone want to share a family sub for $40 a year? So $10 per person

    • 3
    • corkddd on 25/06/2026 - 06:39

      I'm down

      dm me!

      • 1
    • jameswilson on 25/06/2026 - 07:44

      Me too!

      • 0
  • mensk on 25/06/2026 - 00:28

    I would almost consider this just to do the cryptic crossword for a year. are there any free-er avenues otherwise that people might recommend instead?

    • 3
    • jmc787 on 25/06/2026 - 01:07

      Look into the games subsciption

      • 2
    • banana365 on 25/06/2026 - 03:15

      Just try the Guardian crosswords. I'm slowly getting into the cryptic ones.

      • 1
    • chrism238 on 25/06/2026 - 05:12

      The Times also has a well regarded crossword - initial subscription (via a popup) is 1 pound / 6 months.

      • 0
    • ElectricMallet on 25/06/2026 - 10:42

      I get free access to NYT games through my local library membership. It's done via a temporary subscription code which provides 24hrs access each time.

      • 1
  • Huntz on 25/06/2026 - 00:53

    Yep..he is here too: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/world/australia/australia…

    • -1
  • Belv on 25/06/2026 - 01:13

    More Zionist controlled media….. Just go through all the media organisations and look at who runs them directly or indirectly or owns them, but hey it's just a big conspiracy and anti-semitic to even notice facts

    • -1
    • Chris17 on 25/06/2026 - 07:14

      Anybody who starts throwing around terms like ‘Zionist-controlled’ is deep, deep in the sewer of weird conspiracies and Jew-hating. Thanks for being so upfront with your issues.

      • -6
      • Jackson on 25/06/2026 - 09:27

        In late 2025, over 150 contributors (and 300+ public figures and writers total) signed a pledge to boycott the paper's opinion pages. They cited "biased coverage"

        But as usual, we have people writing factless statements suggesting if anyone points out bias towards Israel, you are antisemetic. Nevermind that many of those people are actually Jewish themselves. That's the true antisemitism, shutting down criticism of a foreign government and suggesting all Jewish people are Zionists

        • 3
      • Be careful on 25/06/2026 - 12:07

        Hardly a conspiracy when Israel states that it is a Zionist state.

        • 0
        • Chris17 on 25/06/2026 - 12:41

          Apparently it’s a Zionist state whose tentacles secretly control media, government, banks, the internet and parent-teacher groups. That’s the weird antisemitic trope I was responding to.

          • -6
          • 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2026 - 06:39

            @Chris17:

            Apparently it’s a Zionist state whose tentacles secretly control media

            It's not a secret. This is the weird thing, there is an absolutely massive pro-Israel state (Zionsim) lobby in the US (look up AIPAC) and they openly self-declare their interest in many industries. This whole Iran episode is a great example of Zionist control, Bibi and Trump both admitted it on camera.
            Part of their strategy is to shut down anyone calling this behaviour out by labelling them 'anti-Semitic'. You need to stop being so easily manipulated.

            Simply asking questions and noticing patterns is not racist/fascist/anti-Semitic, it's how real journalism is supposed to be done.

            • 0
        • liongalahad on 25/06/2026 - 23:07

          The (not so) funny thing is anti-Zionism is by all means a genocidal aspiration, as it invokes the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel and the displacement, or sometimes killing, or its entire population.

          • -3
          • 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2026 - 06:41

            @liongalahad:

            The (not so) funny thing is anti-Zionism is by all means a genocidal aspiration,

            Prior to 1947 there was no Jewish state. Where did all those people live before that?

            or sometimes killing, or its entire population.

            Or just move back to where you were before and give back the land you took.

            • 0
            • zagadka on 26/06/2026 - 07:00

              @1st-Amendment: There are some beautiful posters from the 1947 era where a Jewish tourist agency was trying to convince people to come visit Palestine (they still used its real name)

              e.g.

              https://www.palestineposterproject.org/posters/land-bible

              e.g.

              https://www.palestineposterproject.org/posters/see-ancient-b…

              • -1
            • liongalahad on 26/06/2026 - 23:38

              @1st-Amendment:

              Prior to 1947 there was no Jewish state. Where did all those people live before that?

              in Europe, without a state, being slaughtered in a (real) genocide. Do you really want them to accept to go back to that?

              Or just move back to where you were before and give back the land you took.

              Do you realise that your ideas are the very reason why Israel is as brutal as it is when it comes to defend itself? Exactly because anything less than that would mean its own end.
              There is no way in the world where Israelis will "go back to where they were". Their land is Israel, no way back from that, they will stay tehre and fight to the last man to defend it. That's why whoever chants "from the river to the sea" is actually invoking Israeli's genocide, simply bcause there is no scenario where this doenst end with the elimination of Israel's population. Thats exactly what Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran (among others) aspire to do.
              Also, Israel is by all means legal by international law and recognised by the UN and by most nations in the world. Then we can definitely argue about the illegality of the occupied land in the west bank, sure, I do not agree with those and I think Israel should give them back. But Israel as a state has as much right to exists as Australia, or any other nation in the world does

              • -1
              • 1st-Amendment on 27/06/2026 - 07:34

                @liongalahad:

                being slaughtered in a (real) genocide

                Prior to the 1930's this was not a problem. And if you take the time to understand why that became a problem you'll understand see that this is all just part of a narrative.

                But Israel as a state has as much right to exists as Australia, or any other nation in the world does

                What about Maya, Carthage, Ottoman, Byzantine, Mongol, Mughal? Who issues these rights?
                No-one has a 'right to exist'. Only those who posses the biggest stick issue 'rights'. Time will tell if the US has perseverance to keep throwing trillions of dollars at middle eastern wars to protect that right. The same rule applies to Australia

                • -1
                • liongalahad on 27/06/2026 - 09:23

                  @1st-Amendment: What rule applies to Australia? Are you suggesting we should all pack up and leave the land to the aborigines and all go back to the part of the world where our ancestors came from? Because that's what you are proposing for Israel.

                  Anyway, again, as I said, your genocidal ideas are what keeps Israel being as ruthless as it is, so hope you feel great being part of the problem

                  P.s. you saying that the jews had "no problem" before 1930 just goes to shows how you are blatantly ignoring millennia of history, where Jews have been persecuted pretty much everywhere they lived generation after generation. Doesn't surprise me a bit since the level of education on Australian schools is laughable

                  • -2
      • 1st-Amendment on 26/06/2026 - 06:33

        Anybody who starts throwing around terms like ‘Zionist-controlled’ is deep, deep in the sewer of weird conspiracies and Jew-hating

        Zionism is a thing. And if self-proclaimed Zionists control the information you consume, then how is that term anything other than accurate?

        It's ok to say CCP controlled? Or Conservative Controlled, but suddenly Zionist controlled is a weird conspiracy theory? This just shows how naive you are with how various media organisations are manipulating you.

        • 0
  • wishing well on 25/06/2026 - 01:27

    After subscribing, consider cancelling so as to avoid an 'accidental' $25/week or A$180/Yr charge for a roll-ver subscription.

    FYI: Took the same deal in Jan last year but left cancellation till the final month. I accepted the $2 per 4 weeks for another 12 months retention offer. Not sure that would've been available if cancelling early.

    • 4
    • SwarlesBarkley on 25/06/2026 - 01:36

      Can confirm the deal I just got for cancelling early was $1/week for 12 months, so holding off seems like it will potentially pay off!

      • 1
      • Lt Cole on 25/06/2026 - 09:33

        The Sale price is half that - A$0.50/week - I've added that detail into the OP.

        It seems the Sale deal probably doesn't work sequentially with an existing subscription - I've not confirmed but it's not available when logged in, and logging out, taking the deal, using same email (and logging in again), appears to start (and charges) the new subscription instantly - I didn't finalise …

        If you don't have long left on your original deal …

        • 0
    • Onemoredeal on 25/06/2026 - 05:09

      I just did the same thing, $1.95 a month for 12 months after the first year. And for anyone that loves American sports or European Football, it includes full access to the Athletic which is awesome

      • 3
    • Lt Cole on 25/06/2026 - 09:11

      I cancelled a few months in and the offer was sitting there under the 'subscription overview' heading for the rest of the current period

      • 0
      • mordinhoz on 25/06/2026 - 09:21

        can confirm. same thing for me too

        • 0
    • captainslow on 25/06/2026 - 09:48

      I cancelled near the end and got that offer, but didn't accept so I could save SIX DOLLARS! Then they sent me an offer to renew for a year for AUD20 (same as this deal).

      • 0
  • Spacexyz on 25/06/2026 - 01:50

    Reading the press from a declining and anxious superpower is very educational in a bad way.

    • 0
  • Jared17 on 25/06/2026 - 05:39

    Zionist rag

    • 0
    • zagadka on 25/06/2026 - 06:21

      Sadly so are most newspapers e.g. even SMH in Australia is very pro Israel

      • 7
      • xreenberg on 25/06/2026 - 09:29

        That's interesting.

        I neg the deal because the NYT is insufficiently pro-Israel.

        I've also stopped reading SMH & The Age because I believe it is anti-Israel.

        How was the Sydney Opera House forecourt on October 8/9th? Right here buddy, right here.

        • -7
        • zagadka on 25/06/2026 - 17:30

          ?

          • 0
  • SiliconeFries on 25/06/2026 - 06:57

    Why would anyone pay for propaganda?

    • 14
    • dins on 25/06/2026 - 07:08

      As the saying goes stupid is knowing the truth, seeing the truth, but still believing the lies.

      • 1
    • Trentgibbo3 on 25/06/2026 - 12:17

      A sweet crossword?

      • 1
  • asrey1975 on 25/06/2026 - 07:22

    Imagine paying for fake news. No thanks.

    • 7
  • DustyAfternoon on 25/06/2026 - 07:59

    Good luck trying to cancel this. I’ve heard they make it quite difficult, unless you like calling specific numbers in US time zones.

    I’d go for a FT subscription over NYT. It’s more honest.

    • 0
    • zagadka on 25/06/2026 - 08:10

      You can sign up using PayPal which is super easy to cancel

      • 2
    • Lt Cole on 25/06/2026 - 09:37

      Can cancel online, anytime, and not lose any benefits or affect to current subscription period.

      Just rolling the subscription is a bit of a joke as they'll route you to weekly (billed monthly) with the price sting in the tail.

      • 2
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join