Any newspaper reader over a certain age is painfully aware of the erosion of certain standards that used to be taken for granted. Our one remaining daily, the Democrat and Chronicle, is a shell of what it used to be.

If you doubt this, find a copy or electronic reprint of a typical D&C from 30 or 40 years ago. The difference in content quality and quantity is striking.

In your recent profile, former Messenger-Post publisher George Ewing's remarks read like the battle-worn insights of a veteran who's been through a mess of cultural and economic assaults and is uneasy about what he sees over the next hill.

I agree with virtually everything Ewing said. Readership decline has provoked a pandering and watering down, a sad imitation of electronic media, an ADD, politically correct style that tries so hard to win over younger, non-print readers that it alienates older, loyal readers. I wonder how successful the D&C is in creating the newspaper habit in a young demographic that is completely comfortable accessing news and entertainment from laptops, iPods, and cell phones.

Newspapers are run by the suits, who are more interested in the bottom line than in top journalism. Give the people what they want instead of what they need, and try to do it with a stripped-down writing staff.

While the influence of Gannett's USA Today, the Internet, and the blurred line between TV news and entertainment is locally most evident in the D&C, the signs of staff stinginess are evident in Messenger-Post as well. Astute readers notice space padding with repetition of information, excessive borders, and articles gleaned from wire services and other papers.

I used to be more exasperated with the D&C editors than I am now. They are mere pawns in the newspaper game. Heck, they want to keep their jobs like anyone else. And you don't do that by alienating the boss. From what I read, it's the D&C's owners, obsessed with stockholders and profit, who are guilty of this watering down.

We the reading public share a big part of the blame, too. If we demanded more in-depth hard news and less fluff, we'd get it. But we are remarkably willing to settle, clearly content to be led down the path of least effort: home and life-style tips, Hollywood gossip, and assorted print bites that don't compromise our cluttered lives.

I'm not putting myself on a journalistic pedestal, either. While I'm curious about the world around me, and I'm an avid reader of the editorial pages, I have a taste for soft-news, too. As a foodie, I look forward to Tuesdays D&C Living section that focuses on food and cooking. As a fan of movies and books, I look forward to reviews; I'm even addicted to the daily word Jumble.

As Pogo used to say, "We have met the enemy and he is us." There's plenty of guilt to go around: owners, publishers, stockholders, editors, school systems, media outlets, information technology, pace of modern life, capitalism, consumerism, cultural superficiality, and, last but not least, readers and viewers.

Yet it is the ownership and leadership of newspapers that should be in the front line of rescuing serious-minded journalistic standards. As Ewing said, "If you're serious about the role of a newspaper, you have to give them more than what they want."

Rick Taddeo, Webster