This article seems to be making a flawed assumption: that people reading news online would only choose the web site provided by the publisher of a printed newspaper.
But many news sources are now only online. And it's extremely common for people to start with aggregators, to effectively read parts of many sites instead of being dedicated to one.
To me, you can't say "print is still king" without at least examining the trends in total subscribers over the past several years. Suppose a newspaper now has 1/10th the subscribers; if 3% of the remainder is online, that's hardly a victory for print.
But many news sources are now only online. And it's extremely common for people to start with aggregators, to effectively read parts of many sites instead of being dedicated to one.
To me, you can't say "print is still king" without at least examining the trends in total subscribers over the past several years. Suppose a newspaper now has 1/10th the subscribers; if 3% of the remainder is online, that's hardly a victory for print.