[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If this is even half as big a discovery as this makes it appear, why are nothing other than small fringe sites carrying it?"

They are:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-04-05T170749Z_01_L05556501_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-FISH-DC.XML
There's this from nature.com, though without subscription you don't get the article:

News and Views
Nature.com (subscription), UK - 1 hour ago
... We raise these points because on pages 757 and 764 of this issue 1, 2 are reports of just such an intermediate: Tiktaalik roseae, a link between fishes and ...

The story is out there now.

[js1138]

Perhaps he's wondering why the stupid networks aren't carrying it. Give them a few weeks.

[NapkinUser]

Yawn.

I worded that badly, but I still stand by what I wrote. Hardly anyone will hear about this because it's not that big a story. You won't see constant media coverage to the point of a massive terrorist attack like you would if this was anything big, hell it would be lucky to get a 30-second spot on CNN headline news. It's not a slam against evolution or anything, but it's not a big discovery.