»In which I note the signs of the journalistic apocalypse

I have long felt sad about the waning of the newspaper, even before the advent of news-over-the-web (n.b.: not nntp newsgroups). Local newspapers fold under joint operating agreements gone stale, editorial boards fail to uphold once-proud standards, and the quality of the written word deteriorates. I am also mad quite specifically about the United States's "paper of record", the New York Times:

Although Charlie LeDuff's writing for the New York Times has been discredited as the result of plagiarised rather than original work, he continues to write for them.

The Metropolitan Diary, where once appeared delightful vignettes of New York city life, no longer features Phil Marden's poignant and witty illustrations. The single large illustrations no longer have the brevity that fits the stories, and the stories themselves have lost their verve. A new editor, perhaps? The byline has disappeared, too, in the past two years.

The persistent use of an apostrophe to denote a quantity following an acronym is wrong: the New York Times has been writing "New DVD's", rather than "New DVDs". This sort of poor editorial style has led to an unwelcome dumbing-down of the newspaper. I once considered that reading a newspaper was an achievement, representing one's ability to grasp current usage in valid context, but no longer, at least no longer with The Times.

UPDATE: After some thought-provoking comments from Aram, I need to remove the criticism of Charlie LeDuff while I reëvaluate the merits of the plagiarism charges. The New York Times has made quite a fuss recently about rediscovering their journalistic standards, and holding reporters accountable for vetting their sources, but I still have doubts that the newsroom is doing all it should to foster sincere reporters.
Aram also noted the change to my comment form. Wait 'til you see what happens next.