Sources: Newspaper readers going on line

According to Reuters, a new study has found online newspaper readership jumped 31% in the first half of 2006.

"The study, released by the Newspaper Association of America, underscores the Internet's importance to papers beset by falling circulation and advertising revenue in their print editions.

"The average number of unique visitors to online newspaper sites in the first half was more than 55.5 million a month, the study said. That compares with 42.2 million a year earlier.

"Those numbers come from Nielsen NetRatings, which tracks Web audience usage data.

"'Newspaper Web sites have become a significant addition to the print product, and are driving large audience growth,' said John Kimball, the association's chief marketing officer.

The number of page views at newspaper websites also rose, by about 52% in the first half of the year, the association added.

Online newspaper readership should continue to climb as people abandon print newspapers for text, audio and video alternatives on the internet. Here's a list the ten top online newspapers:

1. New York Times
2. Washington Post
3. USA Today
4. Wall Street Journal
5. Los Angeles Times
6. Boston Globe
7. San Francisco Chronicle
8. Seattle Times/Post-Intelligencer
9. Chicago Tribune
10. Houston Chronicle

The association has a list of the top 100 newspaper websites in a PDF file on the site.

Scott Ritter, Back From Iran,To Speak in Venice 11/3

The Free Press: GOP Congressman wants CNN barred from covering the war

By Anne Plummer Flaherty (Capitol Hill Blue, Oct 24, 2006)

A leading Republican lawmaker on defense issues has asked the Pentagon to bar CNN reporters from traveling with military units in Iraq because the network showed insurgent snipers shooting at U.S. troops.

"Does CNN want America to win this thing?" Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., asked in an interview Monday on the network. In past wars, he said, the press was more pro-American.

"You can't be on both sides of the war," Hunter said.

CNN issued a statement saying the decision to air the insurgents' video was "a difficult one, but for a news organization, the right one. Our responsibility is to report the news."

The rest of the story: Capitol Hill Blue

No Comment Dept.

Thanks to Media Cynic for picking up on this: Newsweek to the American People - You can't handle it.

Who Can't Handle the Truth?

Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi viciously but deservingly lampoons 9/11 conspiracy kooks in an essay rather undiplomatically entitled “The Idiocy Behind the ‘9/11 Truth’ Movement.” Taibbi humorously examines how these persistent loudmouths undermine their own cause by making it easy for Bush defenders to dismiss credible analysts who rely on evidence that really is irrefutable, as opposed to what passes for conclusive with the 9/11 nuts.

In stark contrast to Taibbi's brilliance, Carrie Antlfinger falls flat in her gratuitous AP article about controversial university instructor Kevin Barrett. Antlfinger lamely attempts to marginalize Barrett, who is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and is known for accusing the Bush gang of having planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. In her zeal to smear Barrett with innuendo, Antlfinger sees news - or pretends to see it - where there is none, and ignores her obligation to identify sources or explain why anonymity is required.

Antlfinger treats as scandalous an unedited and unpublished essay that Barrett wrote for a forthcoming compilation called “Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11.” A staffer at Barrett’s potential publisher told Antlfinger the “essay may not be in the book” when it is released to the public, but that little bit of uncertainty didn't dissuade our intrepid reporter from forging ahead with her alarmist piece of nothingness.

Antlfinger is convinced she’s onto something big, because in the preprint she mysteriously “obtained,” Barrett compares George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler. But as Barrett told me on the phone, scores of famous and not so famous people have previously made the same comparison. So why do AP readers need to know Barrett might or might not get his parroting of a consensus published?

I called Antlfinger’s editor, Roger Schneider, and he claimed the work in progress is a matter of public interest since “Kevin Barrett is newsworthy” in general. Schneider didn't say what Barrett's notoriety has to do with the unremarkable material Antlfinger approaches as if she were uncovering a dirty secret, nor did he explain why Antlfinger writes in her article that the “unedited copy [was] first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press."

Why is it relevant that another news organization also acquired the transitory collection of essays, but unimportant who provided it? Schneider insisted that Antlfinger is not in violation of any journalistic or company rule, but according to the Associated Press Statement of Ethical Principles: “News sources should be disclosed unless there is a clear reason not to do so. When it is necessary to protect the confidentiality of a source, the reason should be explained.” -- Jeff Norman