My credit card bill is going to be little less going forward. But that really isn’t what this is about. This is about news publications and subscriptions.

I’m one of those people who actually pays for online and print subscriptions. I understand what it takes to put out a publication. I understand the resources involved. I understand the human power—the reporting, writing, editing. I understand the labor involved in laying out a paper, the printing, the distribution costs. Publishing online has its own issues, especially with a public expecting news 24/7, but doesn’t want to pay for it.

I believe it’s important to pay for news and not just read the headlines or free newsletters.

I have subscriptions to the New York Times and Washington Post because I believe in the bigger picture they bring to readers.

However, after what the Post did by not endorsing a presidential candidate had me stop that subscription. Unfortunately, I can’t stop it immediately and have them refund me money. So, I’m still a subscriber until sometime in March. Maybe the federal law approved this month making canceling subscriptions of all kinds easier means I will get a refund one day. I’m not holding my breath.

It’s unconscionable that the Post and LA Times just a couple weeks before the election said they would not be endorsing a presidential candidate. I’m one of more than 200,000 people to unsubscribe from the Post after the announcement.

It’s one thing to change policy well in advance of the election. But that’s not what happened here. Owners of the publications pulled the endorsements because they didn’t like them. Wow. Just wow.

It makes me wonder what else these billionaires are controlling when it comes to providing the news.

It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing with a particular endorsement—not for me, anyway. It was how these non-endorsements came about. It hearkens back to the days of yellow journalism where owners like William Randolph Hearst had his hands on every barrel of ink.

In a time when traditional journalism is struggling to prove its legitimacy (and keep readers) this is such an incredible black eye. It’s shameful. It’s worse than that. It’s abhorrent.

And to think that below the masthead of the Post it says “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

Then there is the cost of subscriptions. I have had an online subscription to the Chico Enterprise-Record almost since I got here. Not anymore. I was paying $16 month. I was notified this month it would be going to $6.50 a week starting in November. This means going from $192 a year to $390.

It was never worth $192. But, again, I understand the financial constraints a small publication is under. I want to support local journalism. I implore everyone to support their local media outlets.

I left a message with the circulation manager in Chico. No call back. I know sometimes when you chat with a person you can negotiate a deal. Oh, well.

There are other sources here for local news, but the pickings are slim. Nonetheless, I am seeking them out so I can stay informed.

Then there is the sad news from my friend Kat who owns Tahoe Guide (formerly Tahoe Weekly). She just let readers know the print version is going away because of costs. Another way of saying the number of advertisers (income) and subscribers (income) is not keeping up with expenses.

It will exist online. This is good for readers and advertisers. That’s assuming advertisers buy into the online version. And they should. It’s all the same wonderful content. And the bonus with advertising online is that when people click on an ad, they go to that business’ website. Print clearly can’t offer that.

I share all this with you to encourage everyone to pay attention to what your news sources are doing—or not doing. Support local media. Support regional media. Support national media.

If we don’t have legitimate news outlets, well, I don’t even want to go there. It takes all of us to support news outlets—big and small.