Do you still read newspapers?

The circulation data is clear: Fewer people are taking the daily newspaper in the United States. Readers and, increasingly, advertisers are moving online.

As online journalists, many of us straddle both worlds. Many of us work for newspaper-dot-coms; others at least started their careers in print.

Are any of us still reading the “dead tree edition?” If so, how many newspapers a day are you reading? And how many did you read a decade ago?

Journalists, one might presume, ought to be the biggest fans and consumers of journalism. Can online journalists, folks at leading edge of industry change, still be counted on to take the print edition? Or have we bailed on print, too?

Tell us in the comments which papers you still read in print, and which you would recommend. Or, if you are not reading papers in print, tell us what might help you change your mind and subscribe to a print newspaper in the future.

Where do you want to work?

Almost everyone working within journalism today feels the economic uncertainty that is challenging the industry. Many of us are worried about our jobs, our incomes… and our ability to do accurate, influential work.

But let us back up for a moment, and think about an industry without such troubles. Let’s take concerns about “how to make money online” or how to avoid newsroom cutbacks off the table.

As the Internet has accelerated economic chaos within the journalism business, it has created new publishing opportunities for individual reporters. Now, you can go on your own, explore your passions, and have your work become the focus of a 24/7 community.

But would you want to? Assuming you could make as comfortable a living as a solo blogger as a newsroom reporter, which would you pick?

Please take a moment to share in the comments your vision for an ideal job in journalism.

Are political reporters asking the right questions?

Our question of the week this week is two-part, and inspired by the backlash over questions asked by two ABC newsmen at Wednesday’s debate between the two remaining Democratic candidates for U.S. president, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Here’s what I wrote on OJR’s “editor’s note” yesterday: “It becomes more difficult to make a compelling argument that the decline of the professional news industry harms society when the amateurs come up with better Presidential debate questions than the pros do.”

The WaPo’s Tom Shales unloaded, too, though the NYT’s resident op/ed page conservative, David Brooks, defended the questioning.

What say you? Were the questions appropriate, useful and insightful? Or the type of horse-race, ‘inside baseball,’ gotchas that many bloggers use as justification for attacks on the so-called mainstream media?

Finally, let’s put that final assertion to a test here. Which do you think is a better source for true and accurate coverage of the White House and the race for it?

We’d love to hear your comments on these issues, too.