PG+ becomes a negative

This blog had a lively discussion several months ago about what it meant for the Post-Gazette to implement a paid members feature on its Web site. At first, I applauded the decision not to give away information for free. People should have to pay to read the content that the newspaper provides. But the more I look at the diminishing size and quality of the print edition, I'm beginning to think that PG+ is actually hindering the product.

I began noticing something was amiss in September by the pathetic Steelers coverage. Beat reporter Ed Bouchette does a great job, but his notebooks and other information that usually appeared in print suddenly disappeared. The P-G is hyping a Steelers blog and other coverage as the biggset reason to pay for the Web membership. However, I don't understand why the P-G is now punishing the people who pay for the newspaper to be delivered each day.

The Post-Gazette should put ALL of its Steelers information in the print edition, and limit the amount of available on the Internet. I plan on calling sports editor Jerry Micco and executive editor David Shribman to complain about why print subscribers are getting the shaft. It would make sense to offer the PG+ feature for free to regular subscribers. If their response is underwhelming, then I will cancel my $85 print subscription (circulation numbers are the bread and butter for advertising revenue) and sign up for the $36 PG+ plan. It makes economic sense for me, but I doubt the same can be said for the Post-Gazette.