Well, I much prefer the second article over the first. The PMC article seems to be attempting to extrapolate data from many different reports (mostly in sub Saharan Africa), some decades old, to make a case for North America.
I don't have time to pull up references for all that I'm going to say, but the bottom line: Both admit that penile cancer is very rare at approximately one case per 100,000 men. It is also understood that it tends to affect old men (median age given as 68) and that in nearly all cases those affected will die from some other cause long before the penile cancer has a serious affect. It is generally admitted that circumcision kills around 120 babies a year in the U.S. Many suspect that the figure may be a lot higher because of the prevalence of dishonest reporting (i.e. the child died from the anaesthetic - well if he wasn't getting circumcised he would not have needed an anaesthetic). There are also a number of complications that result from circumcision requiring further surgery.
So the question becomes: Would a man prefer to live his life with a normal intact penis, enjoying sex as nature intended, with a very slight risk of acquiring penile cancer as an old man, OR be circumcised as a child, with all the attendant physiological (sub normal sex life and possible mutilated penis) and (often) psychological effects, including a very slight risk of death, for a small decrease in the risk of acquiring an extremely rare case of penile cancer?
I know what I'd choose - and it would not be genital surgery.