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.
That is exactly right. I tried, many times, to contact the newspaper via telephone, email, and actually going into their office. Although the office personnel tried to be helpful, my emails were never answered and my phone calls were in vain.
I could sign into my account and view my payment options, but I could not change them nor could I cancel the account. When using the exact same password to access an article, I got a message that I needed to sign in! I reset the password and got the same result (this was upon advice from so-called tech support).
Finally, I became sufficiently disgusted and used the nuclear option. BTW, a few weeks ago, they newspaper sent me a letter (USPS) thanking me for subscribing to their physical paper, which I had never done. They also asked me to renew. Fat chance of that!!!
