Yes, a contract is a contract, so I can see why BOTH parties are expected to meet their obligations (i.e. a set amount for a set period of time for a set service/product).
However, the difference in this scenario - if I have understood correctly - is that the OP was NOT getting the full service to which he had subscribed. So, I think the onus was on the newspaper to (a) either give him the full product/service OR (b) initiate the cancellation of auto-payments (i.e. "de-authorize", if you will) on the credit card as requested by the OP. Either (a) or (b) would have be the honourable thing for the newspaper to do, IMHO.
