Pity The Poor Newspapers

I noticed today that the NY Times, still the best newspaper in the country, in my opinion, has resorted to putting a big ugly animated ad on Page One of its online edition. The ad takes up about a third of the page.
That's sad, because it's an indication of how far journalism has fallen.
No one will pay to view newspapers or magazines online, because people are used to getting news on the Web for free.
I don't know what's going to become of professional journalism, which has mostly been supported by advertising.
Who is going to pay for accurate reporting by educated informed professionals who used to travel around the world?
Amateur online bloggers, like myself, can't fill their shoes.
I should know. I was a reporter and editor for newspapers for 12 years and was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize my first year as a reporter (1967, the year my son was born).
We amateurs don't have the time or the resources to do a professional job.
I can't go to city hall all day or spend time interviewing the governor about issues like water pollution or garbage dumps, like I once did.
Neither can other amateur bloggers.
We need professional journalists, for an informed electorate, to make participatory democracy work.
Without accurate information, democracy could falter.
I'd be willing to pay $1 a month for the NY Times and the L.A. Times, each.
But that isn't an option, so far.
Two sections of the L.A. Times this morning were only six pages long.
That's sad. Professional journalism seems to be dying off.
Pity the poor newspapers.
Pits us all.