To read is to read is to read

As might be expected, the blogoshpere is abuzz with responses to the NEA report on reading. Among those who have made sensible comments are (of course!) Matt Kirschenbaum writing to the Chronicle, with also-to-be-expected knee-jerk reactions to same.
Gross oversimplification:
NEA: reading is in decline because people are buying/reading fewer books, or in the idealized image: people, especially younger people, are not curling up with an absorbing book. One of the major problems is that they are going online.
Response: there are and have been many forms of reading. “Going online” can mean anything, including reading absorbingly or immersively. The report is flawed because it 1) does not differentiate between the media (book/screen) and 2) does not define reading as anything more than a single experience: linear absorption reading versus scanning, searching, skimming, rereading, etc.
Update: good discussion on the topic at if:book (A Project for the Institute of the Future of the Book).