This, of course, has been the $64,000 question in the newspaper industry for the past decade.

At The Evening News, we have seen huge increases in traffic to our Web sites, and a small reduction in the number of subscribers to the print edition.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a few people are dropping readership of the newspaper because they get their local news online, but not many.

The available evidence seems to suggest, rather, that most people have developed new habits for using media of all kinds. They read the newspaper for certain kinds of information and entertainment, go to the Internet for other information and entertainment, and turn on the television or radio or any of the  many other sources for other select reasons.

A new study of Ohio readers suggests that’s exactly what’s happening.

The research, conducted by Belden Associates for the Ohio Newspaper Association, found that use of newspapers by readers remains strong, and that use of newspaper Web sites is growing. Now more than 80 percent of all people surveyed used one or the other to get their local news in the last week - far more than any other sources, such as television or radio.

Perhaps more important, more people said they were turning to both the newspaper Web site and the local newspaper than a year ago, while the majority said they were spending less time watching television, listening to the radio or reading magazines.

None of this means that newspapers are the news source of the future. That’s probably not the case.

But it suggests that for the time being people still are using both the print and on-line versions of the newspaper.

I mentioned in the discussion following a recent blog post that I have personal reasons to feel queasy about the Bush administration’s saber rattling with Iran.

In late 2002 and early 2003, in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, I was torn over what I should say - either in my own column or on the newspaper’s editorial pages.

I should quickly add that I was not employed by The Monroe Evening News at the time. I was at the Zanesville, Ohio, Times Recorder.

My newspaper had endorsed George Bush for president and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. But I was convinced that attacking Iraq - without a plan for what we would do with the country once we conquered it - was a mistake.

As the inevitability of the attack grew near, I several times sat down to write about why I thought it was the wrong thing to do, both for moral reasons and as national policy.

I didn’t want America to lose the moral high ground by becoming the aggressor - the country that started a war. I grew up thinking of America as the white knight, the country that came in when needed to save the day. Invading Iraq just didn’t feel right.

Further, and more important, I didn’t think it would work. I thought it would just give radical Muslims another reason to hate us, and more ammunition to recruit. And there was the huge question of what would we do with Iraq once we drove Sadaam out?

But I didn’t write that column. I stayed silent. And I have regretted it over and over during the last five years. It’s not that my column would have changed the president’s mind. It probably wouldn’t have changed the mind of a dozen readers of my newspaper. But it would have mattered to me. I would have done what I could.

Now, I feel the deja vu. The president is rattling swords about Iran, just like five-plus years ago with Iraq. He’s trying to convince the world that this is a black and white issue - either Iran gives up its nuclear program or …. or what? Another invasion of a country we can’t hope to change? Another example of the United States as the biggest bully on the block?

I hope not. This time, anyway, I won’t stay silent.

In my view, U.S. policy on Iran makes no sense. The president says he won’t negotiate until Iran halts its nuclear enrichment program. He’s drawing a line in the sand and giving Iran only two choices - even though he knows that Iran is not going to allow itself to be bullied.

He’s marching down a path that can only lead to war. And that’s absolutely the wrong path.

When to publish a story during an ongoing police investigation can be one of the toughest decisions facing a news operation.

Such is the case with a story in Wednesday’s Monroe Evening News and on Monroenews.com about a Monroe High School teacher who is under investigation for inappropriate behavior with a student.

The story is receiving dozens of comments from readers on Monroenews.com, some of whom are critical of The Evening News for publishing the story when the teacher has not been charged with a crime.

They correctly point out that our policy is generally to wait until charges have been filed against someone before reporting their name.

We’ve known about the investigation for months. We know about lots of police investigations that never reach the point of a story in the newspaper. If the police decide there is nothing to an accusation, there’s no reason for a story.

Even when a suspect is arrested, we generally don’t name them until they’ve been to court and been arraigned, or until a prosecutor has signed a warrant.

Two things made this case different.

One, the suspect is in a position of public trust. This isn’t a private person - it’s a teacher, someone we’ve entrusted with childrens’ lives. There is a higher public interest in the case.

And, two, the case reached a point where concrete action was taken. The school district put the teacher on paid administrative leave. She was no longer teaching her classes. The case became public, in a sense, because of the district’s action.

From a practical standpoint, that meant that rumors began to fly even faster at the high school. If the local newspaper continued to ignore it, the rumors would just get wilder and wilder.

Ray Kisonas, the reporter who wrote the story, had to sort through a variety of allegations. The phone was ringing in the newsroom as plenty of people offered their suggestions.

The story that appeared in the paper was short, straightforward, giving accurate information. The teacher wasn’t led out of the school in handcuffs by armed police officers. The allegations had nothing to do with the earlier controversy involving volleyball players.

Other commenters on Monroenews.com wondered why the volleyball controversy was brought up at all. If they weren’t connected, why mention it?

In my view, The Evening News showed considerable restraint in not publishing a story about the accusations last winter, when parents of JV players accused the head coach of abusive behavior and favoritism.  We checked with school officials, who said the complaints were typical of parents who are upset with a coach. It’s not uncommon in youth sports, so we ignored it.

Ironically, the topic was covered on MonroeTalks.com, our social networking site. That’s different. The whole point of MonroeTalks.com is to give Monroe County residents a place to bring up any issue they want to talk about, and coaching of high school sports is a likely topic for conversation.

So, because of the MonroeTalks.com discussion, as well as the high school rumor mill, most people in the high school community were aware of the volleyball controversy. One of the first rumors to get started was that there was a connection between the two situations.

If Ray had left the volleyball controversy out of this week’s story, he would have done readers a disservice. It was important to include the information that they apparently are not connected.

I agree with those “posters” on Monroenews.com that if the teacher turns out to be innocent of the accusations, the story in the paper will have unfairly tarred her reputation. I think that’s very unfortunate.

But we wouldn’t have done her a favor by hiding the facts from the public, letting the rumor mill sweep through town unabated.

When the school district decided the situation was serious enough to take the teacher out of the classroom, we had to do our job and provide as many accurate details as we could.

About a year ago, I predicted that none of the frontrunners in the race for president would get their parties’ nominations.

I’m now officially wrong, on both sides of the fence.

My rationale was that both John McCain and Barack Obama had flaws that couldn’t be overcome. For McCain, it was his support of the war in Iraq. For Obama, race and inexperience.

I still feel the same. I can’t imagine America electing as president a man who thinks the war in Iraq was the right thing to do, and who plans on continuing it.

And I can’t imagine America electing a black man with little national experience as president.

But it appears that one will happen.

It’s not that I don’t admire both men. I’ve enjoyed watching John McCain’s political career since he first hit the national stage. He’s independent-minded, and he’s willing to be thoughtful and to listen to others before shaping his views. And for the most part he seems to be honest and straightforward - something I value, as do most Americans.

I don’t know as much about Barack Obama because he has very little track record. I like what he says, however, about national unity and the need to change how we do business in Washington. He’s a very personable speaker who is easy to like. And I think he’s closer to the right approach in Iraq.

Even though I was wrong in my prediction, I still think I was on the right track. In my view, this campaign is going to be about those same issues.

Which issue will American voters - particularly those middle class, often blue collar suburban white folks in the center of the political spectrum who generally swing elections - be able to stomach more: the status quo in Iraq, or electing a black man who looks and talks very differently than them.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think race should play a role. I wish we were past the point where people even noticed. 

But I’m realistic enough to know that many Americans still are struggling with race issues. They don’t see Mr. Obama as a promising young lawyer from Chicago who quickly rose through the state legislature to win election to the U.S. Senate and who has made a splash on the national scene with his fresh ideas and dramatic public speaking ability. They see him as a black man with a radical minister and hazy ties in his youth to Muslims.

I was wrong with my predictions a year ago, so you know about my track record. But my prediction now is that the war and race will be the real issues in November.