The Arizona Daily Star Tests My Patience

TUCSON – The Arizona Daily Star’s questionable billing practices are making it difficult for me to continue subscribing to the daily.  More on that in a moment.

It’s already a challenge to stay subscribed.  It’s not that the Star’s progressive leanings are sometimes at odds with my classical liberalism (aka libertarianism).  Rather, it’s that the paper doesn’t speak truth to power when it comes to the political monopoly and economic stranglehold that the Democrat Party has had over the city and surrounding county for decades, resulting in high poverty, high crime, lousy upkeep, and subpar economic performance.

So, why do I subscribe to the Star?  Because of my belief that it is important for local newspapers to survive, even if they are owned by out-of-town conglomerates, as is the case with the Star, which is owned by Lee Enterprises of Davenport, Iowa.

Davenport, Iowa!  Can a place be more different from Tucson in culture, history, climate, economics, and flora and fauna?

What’s questionable about the Star’s billing practices?  A recounting of my experience answers the question.

In May of 2023, I subscribed to the digital edition of the Star at a special price of $2.17 per month.

I received no additional charges or correspondence on my subscription after that, or at least not any that were recognizable as coming from the Star.

On March 3, 2026 a charge of $11.62 appeared on my credit card statement from USAT Media of McLean, VA.

Knowing that I never authorized such a payment to USAT Media, and not knowing what USAT Media was, I disputed the charge with the credit card company, which in turn issued a credit of $11.62.

A month later, a charge of $15.22 appeared on my next credit card statement, once again from USAT Media.

A quick internet search reveled that USAT is an abbreviation for the newspaper USA Today, which I don’t read and would never subscribe to, even if it were free, given that its sixth-grade writing is beneath my eighth-grade intellect.

Then, something clicked in the recesses of my fading memory about the Star entering into a business relationship several years ago with Gannett, the publisher of USA Today, whereby Gannett would print the Star and help with circulation and other administrative functions.  Could it be, I asked myself, that the Star’s billing was now being handled by USA Today?

I called the Star’s customer service and spoke with a representative who had a barely understandable East Indian accent.  He confirmed that the charges from USAT Media were from USA Today on behalf of the Star.

He went on to claim that the Star had notified me by email in January 2026 about a change in my subscription price.  I asked if he could email a copy of the notice to me or at least tell me what the subject line said and what the email address of the sender was.  He replied that it wasn’t possible to do that.

I said that I’d have to decide if the subscription was worth the new price of $15.22 per month.

He responded that he would lower the price to $5.00 and would email a confirmation.

I agreed.

To date, no confirmation has been sent.

Should I trust them?

On another note, it’s ironic that subscriber money goes from Tucson to McLean, and it’s hypocritical that USA Today is located in that suburb of the imperial city of Washington, DC.

As with most of the legacy media, USA Today and other Gannett newspapers constantly repeat shopworn platitudes, nostrums, tropes, fatuities, and banalities about social justice, income inequality and diversity.  Yet McLean is one of the wealthiest enclaves in America, with a median household income of over $250,000 and a poverty rate of only 2.9%.  Also, a whopping 84.3% of its residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and only 1.7% of residents are black and only 6.3% are Hispanic.

McLean is 65.9% white, but that’s not why it’s wealthy.  After all, a lot of mostly white towns in the US are dirt-poor.  It’s wealthy because its whites are predominately upper-income.  The same for its Asians, who make up 20.9% of McClean’s population.

By contrast, the city of Tucson’s poverty rate is 6.5 times higher than McLean’s, and its median household income is only a fourth of McLean’s.  One reason for the disparity is that Hispanics comprise 43% of Tucson’s population, and they tend to be lower-income.  Another reason is the aforementioned political monopoly.

It would be a great boon to the local economy if USA Today were to relocate to Tucson, but the elites of McLean wouldn’t want to live among the hoi polloi of the Old Pueblo.  It’s much easier to pontificate about social justice, income inequality and diversity.

Mr. Cantoni can be reached at [email protected].