These findings don't account for huge centralizing effects of online readership. We would expect for several winners to take all, since there are no barriers fo

These findings don't account for huge centralizing effects of online readership. We would expect for several winners to take all, since there are no barriers for readers to navigate towards the highest quality content. I am also puzzled by the absence of The New York Times, which I think would be one of those winners eating into local audiences elsewhere. The concept of a "newspaper" itself makes little sense online, where traditional newspapers compete with aggregators like Reddit and Facebook, and mixed content providers like Breibart, Huffington Post, FiveThirtyEight, Vice, BBC, NPR, Al Jazeera and so on. Should we count those as newspapers? The word "paper" suggests that our categories are inadequate to the task. Other studies show that people are reading more news than ever online. This study should simply conclude that readers no longer call their news sources "newspapers." Imagine a paper that would discuss the stagnation in online shopping by looking at traditional retailers, without mentioning Amazon or Alibaba.