In all my years covering digital music, I've learned to scorn the mainstream media's parroting of RIAA-promoted statistics, memes, alarmist conclusions, and agenda-driven rhetoric. The intersection of digital technology with analog art is a complicated business, and many journalists, editors, and publishers just don't bother getting even a basic grip on facts, or developing any discrimination in their perception of news. But only rarely does a "news" story get as much facile, undiscriminating play as the current NPD Group "study" of traffic in Apple iTunes and various P2P networks.

Google News shows dozens of MSM outlets covering the NPD announcement by simply repeating its talking points without question. They include John Stith at WebProNews saying, "This is a real coup. Congratulations iPodders, you've saved the recording industry." And PC World blasting the preposterous headline: "iTunes More Popular Than Peer-To-Peer." Even CNET shattered its credibility, revealing itself as an MSM sycophant with its straight-ahead repetition of the NPD nonsense.

My correspondence with the NPD Group representative assigned to deal with people like me has revealed that, in the study's measurement scheme, multiple downloads in any service or network count as a single "use" of that service or network. Someone downloading 100 unauthorized tracks in LimeWire is regarded as an equal use to someone purchasing a single track in iTunes. More disturbing than the obfuscating methodology (and the clueless language that refers to P2P clients as "sites") is the utter omission of eDonkey and Bit Torrent, two of the most popular environments for unauthorized trading.

My NPD contact answered my query regarding Bit Torrent as follows: "MusicWatch Digital monitors music files downloaded by U.S. internet households only (not international). On BitTorrent, users share not only music, but also movies, games, and other files. NPD only tracks music files." The first sentence is irrelevant. The second sentence is true of all P2P platforms. The answer seems to evade the question. I have asked for further clarification. Lacking joy in the ensuing reply, my final question will query who paid for the "study."

But the real shame doesn't lie with NPD Group, which might be (though I have no evidence for this) working on behalf of a client's agenda. The mortifying embarrassment goes to all the headline whores that published NPD's results without the slightest question.