• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

DTMark

The Times

Recommended Posts

Is The Times worth subscribing to?

I've never really looked at it before. The entire thing is behind a paywall so you can't "preview" it.

It's £24 a month. I'm not interested in the free Nespresso machine nor the paper-based editions, so I can sign up on the "cancel anytime" subscription basis.

The Guardian and The Independent are a farce, The Daily Telegraph went down the drain a few years back, the Daily Mail is just laughable. I think this is the only one left.

What is its "slant", what bias should I expect?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Owned by Rup4rt Murd0ch who is golfing buddies with the P0TUS. It is the paper for elites? And maybe a hint at which is the winning horse, if you wish to search for these things.

Edited by 201p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to often buy the Times when I had a long commute. 

I've no doubt there was an agenda there, but I didn't tend to read the more comment orientated stuff and stuck to the news, did a good job in my opinion. It seemed to do a good job of separating the news from whatever agenda that had, which I didn't find with the Guardian for example. Not sure how that would work in digital form, but paper wise you sort of knew which bit of it you were in and so could gloss over those parts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each paper has a purpose or it would not exist.

Telegraph - the right

Guardian - the left

The Sun - the right

The Mirror - the left

The Daily Mail - the further right

The Times - ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 201p said:

Each paper has a purpose or it would not exist.

Telegraph - the right

Guardian - the left

The Sun - the right

The Mirror - the left

The Daily Mail - the further right

The Times - ?

You forgot the "Independent" - preaching to imbecile portion of the far left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. Yes, but did that become "i" or do both still exist? I haven't bought a physical newspaper for a long time.

---

When I fill up the car on a Sunday Morning - I feel left out that I am not one of those people that buy a stack of Sunday Newspapers. 

Edited by 201p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, gilf said:

I used to often buy the Times when I had a long commute. 

I've no doubt there was an agenda there, but I didn't tend to read the more comment orientated stuff and stuck to the news, did a good job in my opinion. It seemed to do a good job of separating the news from whatever agenda that had, which I didn't find with the Guardian for example. Not sure how that would work in digital form, but paper wise you sort of knew which bit of it you were in and so could gloss over those parts. 

It was also my commuting paper.

It was midway between the finance obsessed FT and the rugby and cricket obsessed Telegraph.  I liked it but this was twenty years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My local library membership online has access to The Times but several days later. It is OK if you are after the articles rather than the news. I believe that lots of libraries across the UK have this deal.

38 minutes ago, 201p said:

Ha. Yes, but did that become "i" or do both still exist? I haven't bought a physical newspaper for a long time.

---

When I fill up the car on a Sunday Morning - I feel left out that I am not one of those people that buy a stack of Sunday Newspapers. 

 

Sunday Times bundle is a cheap way of buying a load of kindling for the wood-burner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only comment on the paper versions of newspapers. They are all competent at soaking up hedgehog piss and have shit randomly spread across them. Not sure they have any other merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a quick look at The Telegraph. Or at least, the headlines as most of it isn't free to read. 

The Royal family
House prices
War with Russia 
Madeleine McCann
Horses

I stopped reading it when I realised that the articles never change, only the headlines do. It wasn't always this way.

It's basically The Daily Mail for people who think they're too posh to read The Daily Mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 201p said:

Each paper has a purpose or it would not exist.

Telegraph - the right

Guardian - the left

The Sun - the right

The Mirror - the left

The Daily Mail - the further right

The Times - ?

Telegraph hasn't been "on the right" for about 5 years since the Barclay brothers started pursuing left-leaning clickbait for millennials.

 

Sadly it seems to be slowly working.

http://www.rank2traffic.com/telegraph.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did one of those £3 for 3 months subscriptions last year. After that, they wanted to charge me something silly, like £24 per month, so I rang up to cancel. They offered me a rolling £2 per week (digital edition, all 7 days), which I accepted.

I find it to be decent quality, and without too much bias. It is very definitely anti Trump. But I don't find it to be biased with UK politics, and there is very little of the liberal left, SJW, racist, sexist, diversity bollox. They also seem reasonable on brexit.

Worth a trial anyway, you can always cancel. It keeps me away from the So-Called BBC (I shudder to think I was still reading that only 12 months ago).

I'm not sure if I will continue the subscription long term or not, but only because Im not sure I want any news in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gibbon said:

The Spectator is the only magazine/paper I'd pay for

I used to love the Speccie, even though I only read about 20% of each one. Rod Liddle having a post-Brexit meltdown saying he wished he voted to Remain was a bit of a pisstake and I cancelled out of protest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DTMark said:

Just had a quick look at The Telegraph. Or at least, the headlines as most of it isn't free to read. 

The Royal family
House prices
War with Russia 
Madeleine McCann
Horses

I stopped reading it when I realised that the articles never change, only the headlines do. It wasn't always this way.

It's basically The Daily Mail for people who think they're too posh to read The Daily Mail.

The print version of The Times still resembles a real newspaper so I'd guess that the paid for online version is OK too. The problem I have with the online version of anything is that I rarely want to buy it every day and it's a bit of PITA to get one off copies in a way that it isn't when buying a physical newspaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, spunko2010 said:

Sadly it seems to be slowly working.

Look at how they get their traffic...

Quote

Traffic from Organic Search (desktop visits worldwide). This function is in beta.
Keyword                                                     Position         Traffic to the site         Number of searches     
russian doctor video                                      1                      2500000                            8000000
what is the mountain of butterflies             2                        130000                               930000
syed farook                                                     3                        190000                             1900000
sayeed farook                                                 4                          71000                             1000000
gollum sultan                                                  5                        110000                             2100000
spiralizer reviews                                           5                        130000                             2300000
love relationship                                             6                          11000                             1500000
marvel super heroes 4d                                7                             8100                             1100000
adele hello text                                               8                           11000                             1500000
david bowie cancer                                      10                           28000                            3700000

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've subscribed to The Times. Will report back for anyone who is interested.

I'd subscribe to The Spectator too, but it's quite a big sum to pay in one go, shall have to mull it over. Is £149 a year a lot to pay? Probably not.

There is a deal on if you're prepared to hand over your bank details and pay by ongoing Direct Debit but I'd rather not.

Oddly, it isn't any cheaper if you just have the online edition. Or put the other way around it costs the same to have the paper copy delivered which seems a bit mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DTMark said:

I've subscribed to The Times. Will report back for anyone who is interested.

I'd subscribe to The Spectator too, but it's quite a big sum to pay in one go, shall have to mull it over. Is £149 a year a lot to pay? Probably not.

There is a deal on if you're prepared to hand over your bank details and pay by ongoing Direct Debit but I'd rather not.

Oddly, it isn't any cheaper if you just have the online edition. Or put the other way around it costs the same to have the paper copy delivered which seems a bit mad.

Christ £149 a year? 

They are all pushing an agenda with drip drip brainwashing element rather like british educational establishments.

Better off reading online from RT AL jazeera etc & filter out the obvious propaganda. 

Or come here and get the cynical translated version of msm lies

Edited by WorkingPoor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2 January 2018 at 10:53, spunko2010 said:

What about the FT? I haven't read it in a while, I think it was heavily pro-Obarmy so probably anti-Trump.

I was a loyal FT reader for 25 years. However the pro migrant bias stopped me buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Frank Hovis
      This is getting into wtf territory.
      For years we have all been baffled by the slack cut to the Saudi royals and now they have gone, in a coupe of weeks, from  the world's richest and luckiest people to torture victims.  And this is miles down the news behind Barak Obama's daughter kissing somebody of whom I've not heard and somebody else of whom I've not heard being thrown off a reality show I don't watch.
      Is the MSM just openly taking the piss now?
      EXCLUSIVE: 'American mercenaries are torturing' Saudi elite rounded up by new crown prince - and billionaire Prince Alwaleed was hung upside down 'just to send a message'
      Source in Saudi Arabia says American private security contractors are carrying out'interrogations' on princes and billionaires arrested in crackdown  Detained members of Saudi elite have been hung by their feet and beaten by interrogates, source says Among those hung upside down are Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor worth at least $7 billion who is being held at Riyadh's Ritz Carlton Arrests were ordered three weeks ago by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Source claims mercenaries are from 'Blackwater', a claim also made by Lebanese president But its successor firm denies it has any operations in Saudi Arabia whatsoever and says its staff abide by U.S. law Americans who commit torture abroad can be jailed for up to 20 years  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5108651/American-mercenaries-torturing-Saudi-princes.html
    • By wherebee
      Here is a good example to use to pose a question I have:
      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/04/man-charged-with-attempted-of-seven-year-old-girl
      You'll notice that the man has been charged only.  He is named - fully - and his age given.
      Yet in lots of cases where minority offenders are arrested and charged for murder, rape, etc,, no name is given in the media until much later in the court process, if at all.  My personal view is that this is due to anti-white racism in the MSM, seeking to conceal non-white offender names - but I could be wrong.  Anyone who knows the UK law care to comment?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.