For a long time the New York Times has cost one dollar-- just a dollar, whether purchased in New York City or a newsstand in California. But the price of today's (7/16) edition of the New York Times, which coincidentally seemed slimmer than usual, went up in price by a quarter to $1.25 -- which is still good value because it's a great newspaper (despite some faults) that does a thorough job and covers topics that others do not, and has been doing so since 1851 -- winning more Pulitzer Prizes (95) along the way than any other American news journal.
But regardless of its historic legacy, like all newspapers across the US today, the New York Times is also feeling the economic fallout of the new digital age in which advertisers are increasingly taking their dollars elsewhere, and news and information seekers are going online in increasing numbers. Simply put: people don't read newspapers quite like they used to. In a recently published study entitled "Young People and News," reported coincidentally in today's New York Times, findings showed that only 9% of teenagers surveyed read a newspaper every day. Meanwhile 18 to 30 year olds rated higher, with 16% of those surveyed daily newspaper readers.
Recently both the San Jose Mercury News (long considered among the country's finest newspapers) and the San Francisco Chronicle laid off a chunk of staff. They had no choice: the economy ruled, and journalists lost jobs. But the tragedy is that with these investigative reporters gone, or going, so too is good journalism. The idea of the traditional city newspaper office, filled with reporters who go out with a pad and pen to dig deep in investigative stories has pretty much become a thing of the past -- and that sucks. While there are now more and more news and information sources than ever before, with everyone and their mama blogging, it often seems in this new digital age that we've traded in quality for quantity.
Keala C Ramos used to work at the 
