Back in the day, the newsstand price for a newspaper, if you got it at the newsstand everyday of the week, was maybe $10-$11 a month. But you could get a subsc

Back in the day, the newsstand price for a newspaper, if you got it at the newsstand everyday of the week, was maybe $10-$11 a month. But you could get a subscription for less. You could also read the front page right there at the newsstand without paying anything. You could walk into just about any office building, especially any business with waiting room (like a doctor), and find the daily paper there to read for free. If you didn't want to pay for the paper then you could always find one - just ask someone that read theirs already. Back in the day news was plenty available for free, you just had to know where to look or ask. Now there is no such thing as a free look. No one has a paper they already read to share. I'm all for paying for subscriptions but that alone does not bring the balance the world once had. Just try to figure out what say the LA Times will charge you after the 'introductory period' - and they won't tell you up front that you have to call to cancel and that the call will take like 30 minutes while they try to retain your business (after jacking up the price by many times after the intro period). And you probably cannot choose the length of your subscription, subscriptions now go on in perpetuity until you complete the onerous cancellation process. I have no love for the way modern news charges for its product and treats its customers. You can blame the internet and cheap people but that isn't the whole story.