Only 3 percent of newspaper reading is done online

I can't believe CNET pays for this crap. Remind me to set their domain to 127.0.0.1 until they stop paying for drivel written my innumerates with no apparent understanding of the application of statistical methodologies to test hypotheses.

If you're going to write in support of or, in this case, detraction of a set of quantitative results, you'd better damn well offer up your own alternative logical inference chain.

Headline should say, "...according to wild guesses". From the article:

In the absence of any remotely accurate research, he estimated that the average print reader gives 25 minutes of his or her daily life to the newspaper. And 35 minutes on a Sunday. He also estimated that the average print reader looks at 24 pages in that newspaper.

These seem like pretty high estimates to me.

I found the process of coming up with the estimate just as interesting as the conclusion itself. It is described at http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/print-is-still-king-only-3-... (linked to by the original article)

The complete headline should end in "by people who read newspapers"

I think the market for newspapers still exists. It may always exist. Some people just like the tactile feel of paper. The real issue Newspapers' have is that it doesn't exist to the point where it will support their bloated staff.

i bet it has something to do with needing to register/login to read an article.