We used to subscribe to the Chicago Tribune. We don't anymore, having cancelled our subscription several years ago following the death of President Ronald Reagan. At that time, my husband (a presidential and history buff) noted a significant factual error in the newspaper's prepared piece covering Reagan's life and presidency. The piece, certainly researched and written ahead of time so as to be immediately available upon Reagan's death, was attributed to one of the Tribune's lead reporters. As my husband read the article, he scratched his head in puzzlement at the unemployment figures that were quoted for Reagan's terms in office. He checked the figures against the U.S. Department of Labor official statistics and found them to be inaccurate. In spite of my husband's writing several letters to Tribune editor Don Wycliffe complete with supporting documentation from the Department of Labor, there was never any retraction or correction, nor was there a personal response from Mr. Wycliffe to my husband. We decided that whatever the reason--poor customer service, laziness, or intentional deception--this was a newspaper that did not deserve our money.
Since that time we have come to rely more and more on the internet as our primary source of daily news (we also receive several print periodicals). So even if the incident described above had never happened, we would have probably ultimately cancelled our subscription, if only to save money. But I must admit I sometimes miss walking outside for the morning paper and being able to physically hold it in my hands. On the other hand, the more I find out about what our major newspapers are up to these days, the more I am glad we don't subscribe to one. Here's a link describing how three of our country's most prominent large metropolitan papers have decided to legitimize Hamas by giving that organization a voice on their op-ed pages.