The Future of Reading on Paper and Reading (screening) on Screens

Diging, pronounced as "dijing", for reading text online.....? Good idea!

A New York Times reporter tells me today:

"Well, "screening" already has another meaning. "Surfing" kinda works but it suggests a certain inattention. I like "diging" - (pronounced "dijing") as in digital except people would end up saying "digging," which is SO '60s. Hmmm ...."


Sent from his Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

IS A NEW WORD NEED FOR READING ONLINE, VERSUS READING ON PAPER?

YOU BE THE JUDGE. CHIME IN WITH YOUR IDEAS, PRO OR CON. A SPIRITED DISCUSSION IS GOING ON HERE:

Life After Newspapers Are Replaced by Online News Sites ......by Michael Kinsley

Life After Newspapers



By Michael Kinsley / slightly edited by Danny E. Bloom
with apologies to Michael Kinsley who never answers my emails by the way.....SMILE
April 6, 3009 AD

Few industries in this country have been as coddled as newspapers. The government doesn't actually write them checks, as it does to farmers and now to banks, insurance companies and automobile manufacturers. But politicians routinely pay court to local newspapers the way other industries pay court to politicians. Until very recently, most newspapers were monopolies, with a special antitrust exemption to help them stay that way. The attorney general has said he is open to additional antitrust exemptions to lift the industry out of today's predicament. The Constitution itself protects the newspaper industry's business from government interference, and the Supreme Court says that includes almost total immunity from lawsuits over its mistakes, like the lawsuits that plague other industries.


And then along came the Internet to wipe out some of the industry's biggest costs. If you had told one of the great newspaper moguls of the past that someday it would be possible to publish a newspaper without paying anything for paper, printing and delivery, he would not have predicted that this would mean catastrophe for the industry. But that is what it has been.


It is tempting, but too easy, to say the problems of newspapers are their own fault. True enough, the industry missed a whole armada of boats. If newspapers had been smarter, or moved faster, they might have kept the classified ads. They might have invented social networking. But that's all hindsight. I didn't think of these things, nor did you. Judging from Tribune Co., for which I once worked, the typical newspaper executive is a bear of little brain. Until recently, little brain was needed. Even now, to say the newspaper industry has no problems that a busload of geniuses couldn't solve is essentially saying that the industry's problems are insoluable. Or at least insoluable without help.

But help may be on the way. Suggestions are pouring in -- sometimes with checks attached -- that newspapers should become nonprofit foundations, or that foundations should supply investigative teams and foreign bureaus and other expensive accessories. Or that limits should be placed on the nefarious practice of "aggregation" -- Web sites lifting the news, via links, from other sites. Or that customers should be forced, somehow, to pay. Two recent articles in Slate argued that newspapers (1) actually play a fairly unimportant role in our democracy and (2) are in this pickle because of financial shenanigans, not inexorable forces of technology. But let's say these are both wrong: that technology is on the verge of removing some traditionally vital organs of the body politic. What should we do?

How about nothing? Capitalism is a "perennial gale of creative destruction" (Joseph Schumpeter). Industries come and go. A newspaper industry that was a ward of the state or of high-minded foundations would be sadly compromised. And for what?

You may love the morning ritual of the READING paper over coffee, as I do, but do you seriously think that this deserves a subsidy? Sorry, but people who have grown up around computers find READING the news on paper just as annoying as you find SCREENING IT HERE on a screen. (All that ink on your hands and clothes.) If your concern is grander -- that if we don't save traditional newspapers we will lose information vital to democracy -- you are saying that people should get this information whether or not they want it. That's an unattractive argument: shoving information down people's throats in the name of democracy.

But this really isn't a problem. As many have pointed out, more people are spending more time reading or SCREENING news and analysis than ever before. They're just doing THEIR SCREENING online. For centuries people valued the content of newspapers enough to pay what it cost to produce them (either directly or by patronizing advertisers). We're in a transition, destination uncertain. Arianna Huffington may wake up some morning to find The Washington Post gone forever and the nakedness of her ripoff exposed to the world. Or she may be producing all her own news long before then. Who knows? But there is no reason to suppose that when the dust has settled, people will have lost their appetite for serious news when the only fundamental change is that producing and delivering that news has become cheaper.

Maybe the newspaper of the future will be more or less like the one of the past, only not on paper. More likely it will be something more casual in tone, more opinionated, more reader-participatory. Or it will be a list of favorite Web sites rather than any single entity. Who knows? Who knows what mix of advertising and reader fees will support it? And who knows which, if any, of today's newspaper companies will survive the transition?

But will there be a Baghdad bureau? Will there be resources to expose a future Watergate? Will you be able to get your news straight and not in an ideological fog of blogs? Yes, why not -- if there are customers for these things. There used to be enough customers in each of half a dozen American cities to support networks of bureaus around the world. Now the customers can come from around the world as well.

If General Motors goes under, there will still be cars. And if the New York Times disappears, there will still be news. ONLY YOU WILL BE SCREENING IT, NOT READIND IT.

Michael Kinsley writes a weekly column for The Post.

Screening versus reading: reading on paper versus reading online

Notice that I called my blog, see link,

"The End of the Printed Page, Newspapers, Books and Critical Thinking: Welcome to Screening" Which Replaces "Reading" as a Verb"

REASON: i feel that with the growth of online reading, replacing paper surface reading in the future, we will maybe witness the END of the printed page, newspapers and CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL THINKING, for better or worse.....

MAYBE?

http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14107&PN=1&TPN=1

I am curious to know if any other people here share my concerns about the need for a new word in English, and other languages, too, for READING ONLINE, to differentiate this activity from reading on paper, which is a very different animal.

See two blogs I am on here: one in China, the other in USA:

edit

AND in other languages, how does one different reading text on paper surface to reading text on a screen online? Do tell.

Email me offline for any followups too.

danbloom AT gmail DOT com


Edited by danbloom on 06 April 2009 at 6:28am




Volte
Triglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 9/4/2007
(730 days ago)

Posts: 2512
Speaks: English*, Italian, Esperanto
Studies: Polish, German



27 February 2009 at 2:20pm | IP Logged
It's not at all a different animal - I do them interchangeably.

The difference in types of content (short news articles vs novels vs textbooks ...) is much more substantial, but can already be adequately expressed without new words.

Edit: please don't duplicate-post or promote your blogs in your first posts.


Edited by Volte on 27 February 2009 at 2:22pm




eoinda
Diglot
Newbie
Sweden
Joined 12/8/2008
(239 days ago)

Posts: 37
Speaks: Swedish*, English
Studies: Spanish, Mandarin



05 April 2009 at 3:52pm | IP Logged
I agree with Volte it is very much the same thing and if you want them to differ why can't you just say "online
reading" as opposed to "normal reading".




JuanM
Diglot
Senior Member
Colombia
Joined 30/9/2008
(190 days ago)

Posts: 210
Speaks: Spanish*, English
Studies: German, Russian



05 April 2009 at 7:12pm | IP Logged
I do believe that, as they are commonly practiced, they are different activities which involve separate and distinct states of mind. And quite frankly, I pity a new generation that may miss out on genuine reading.




danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
06 April 2009 at 6:18am | IP Logged
JUAnM above said: "I do believe that, as they are commonly practiced, they are different activities which involve separate and distinct states of mind. And quite frankly, I pity a new generation that may miss out on genuine reading. "
I do believe that, as they are commonly practiced, they are different activities which involve separate and distinct states of mind. And quite frankly, I pity a new generation that may miss out on genuine reading.

Well said, JuanM. I agree. that is what i am driving at: we use different mental facutlies and diffrent parts of brain when we read online and when we read on paper. Both are reading, yes, but they are different kinds of "reading" AND that is why i feel we need a new word, like screening, but who knows what it will be. common usage will decide later. most people disagree with me and JuanM, but a few do. One is Dr Anne MGNANE IN nOWAR WHO SAIDS"

Hi,
my first impression is that the term "screening" is adequate in some
respects, but not in others. It's adequate to the extent that it
points to certain differences in the reading mode which has to do with
the display nature, the central bias of a screen compared to a page of
print text (our gaze is naturally oriented towards the center), and
the image-like character of modalities (we tend to read a screen
spatially, in contrast to the page which we linearly). It is not
adequate insofar as it does not discriminate between different kinds
of screening - we can also screen a print text (scan, filter, skim
etc.), and we perceive different kinds of screens differently (compare
the TV with the cell phone, the e-book with the laptop).

Regards,
Anne Mangen
Dr. art., førsteamanuensis Ph. D., associate professor
National Centre for Reading Research and Education Universitetet i
Stavanger University of Stavanger




danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
06 April 2009 at 6:20am | IP Logged
vOLTE TRGILOT SAID: "It's not at all a different animal - I do them interchangeably.

The difference in types of content (short news articles vs novels vs textbooks ...) is much more substantial, but can already be adequately expressed without new words. "

i was NOT CLEAR.....VOLTE, WE DO THEM INTERCHANgably yes, but this is not about content, short or textbooks, this is about how our brains process the info we get when we read on paper and when we read on screens,,,,it is VERY DIffrent, see dr anne above from norway, she is leading the charge on this

DANNY





danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
06 April 2009 at 6:21am | IP Logged
eoinda wrote:
I agree with Volte it is very much the same thing and if you want them to differ why can't you just say "online
reading" as opposed to "normal reading".




Yes yes , saying ONLINE READING is okay, too. I agree. But in time, we will need a new word; it won't be SCREENING....but what other words or terms can you think of?

danny

just asking, no agenda




danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
06 April 2009 at 6:26am | IP Logged
Hi,
my first impression is that the term *****"screening" is adequate in some
respects, but *****not in others. It's adequate to the extent that it
points to certain differences in the reading mode which has to do with
the display nature, the central *****bias of a screen compared to a page of
print text (our gaze is *****naturally oriented towards the center), and
the image-like character of modalities (we ******tend to read a screen
spatially, in *****contrast to the page which we linearly). It is not
adequate insofar as it does not discriminate between different kinds
of screening - we can also screen a print text (scan, filter, skim
etc.), and we perceive different kinds of screens differently (compare
the TV with the cell phone, the e-book with the laptop).

Regards,
Anne Mangen
Dr. art., førsteamanuensis Ph. D., associate professor
National Centre for Reading Research and Education Universitetet i
Stavanger University of Stavanger screening

JuanM also told me in a PM reply, and it's a good thought too. I agree: DANNY

"I think the distinction lies in the state of mind involved. Reading from a book propitiates an active and thoughtful relation with the text, while on the Internet one more often engages in skimming and extracting information, rather than reflecting and assimilating."

key words:


Joined: 30 September 2008
Posts: 209
Country: Colombia Sent: 06 April 2009 at 5:48pm

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

state of mind involved.

an active and thoughtful relation with the text,

on the Internet one more often engages in skimming and extracting information

rather than reflecting and assimilating.




Yukamina
Senior Member
Canada
Joined 1/10/2007
(555 days ago)

Posts: 118
Speaks: English*
Studies: Japanese, Korean



07 April 2009 at 7:11pm | IP Logged
I still don't see what the difference is between reading on paper and reading online.
When I read information on paper, I think I skim a lot. And when I read fiction online, I focus more.
You'll have to explain more what you mean by different "states of mind involved" means.




Volte
Triglot
Senior Member
Switzerland
Joined 9/4/2007
(730 days ago)

Posts: 2512
Speaks: English*, Italian, Esperanto
Studies: Polish, German



08 April 2009 at 3:57am | IP Logged
Yukamina wrote:
I still don't see what the difference is between reading on paper and reading online.
When I read information on paper, I think I skim a lot. And when I read fiction online, I focus more.
You'll have to explain more what you mean by different "states of mind involved" means.




Simply put, I think it's a meaningless distinction, and not one that merits a new word. Like you, I'm perfectly comfortable skimming paper documents - and I've read too many academic papers and novels (including behemoths like "The Pickwick Papers") online to take any idea of it somehow fundamentally being less 'concentrated' seriously.





danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
08 April 2009 at 4:08am | IP Logged
Volte wrote:
Yukamina wrote:
I still don't see what the difference is between reading on paper and reading online.
When I read information on paper, I think I skim a lot. And when I read fiction online, I focus more.
You'll have to explain more what you mean by different "states of mind involved" means.




Simply put, I think it's a meaningless distinction, and not one that merits a new word. Like you, I'm perfectly comfortable skimming paper documents - and I've read too many academic papers and novels (including behemoths like "The Pickwick Papers") online to take any idea of it somehow fundamentally being less 'concentrated' seriously.





Well, like I said earlier, I am not married to any new word or term for reading online, versus reading on paper surface of a book or newspaper or magazine, BUT....it does seem to me that this topic deserves a good, robust discussion pro and con, pro or con, just as food for thought. I coined the word "screening" to mean "reading online on a screen" to differentiate this mental exercise from reading text on a paper surface, and many many top experts in the reading/education/tech fields agree with me, that the two phenoms are vastly different. Ask Dr Mangnen in Norway, she has a good take on all this. Ask around, ask your colleagues.

Again, all I am looking for here and on my bloog (that's a Bloom Blog, smile) -- google the term "Reading on paper versus reading online" to see mamy experts around the world discussing this, mostly at my instigation, I admit, sheepishly, but I am not married to this idea. In fact, I might get divorced from it soon. SMILE. However, at the moment, I think this is a good discussion and worth having.

Yes, reading is reading. Of course. But what we remember and what we take in are very different, IMHO, in these two cases, reading on paper and reading online. I think JuanM said it very well, above, in his PM to me yesterday. And Dr M in Norway has a very good academic paper on this.

The question is: do we need a new word, and what could/should/might that word be?

Of course, who knows which word will eventually STICK? Nobody knows. I doubt screening will last long. It's just a word to get this discussion going.

Others have suggested: browing, skimming, perusing......

What words pop into your mind, and HUMOR is okay here too. But keep it serious at the same time. I am serious about all this, and I have asked the top reporters at the New York Times, David Pogue and John Markoff, to get track on this chat here, and also James Fallows at the Atlantic Monthly and Jason Pontin at Technology Review at MIT. They do not agree with me, but they are watching this discussion online unfold.

More comments, please.

Edited by danbloom on 08 April 2009 at 4:11am




danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
08 April 2009 at 4:10am | IP Logged
Volte wrote:

Simply put, I think it's a meaningless distinction, and not one that merits a new word. Like you, I'm perfectly comfortable skimming paper documents - and I've read too many academic papers and novels (including behemoths like "The Pickwick Papers") online to take any idea of it somehow fundamentally being less 'concentrated' seriously.





YES....BUT.....JuanM above said:

"I think the distinction lies in the state of mind involved. Reading from a book propitiates [an active and thoughtful relation with the text], while on the Internet one more often [engages in skimming and extracting information], rather than reflecting and assimilating."

Isn't he correct? That is my experience, too. But maybe other people have other experiences, sure. Please explain more. I am all ears.




danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
08 April 2009 at 4:14am | IP Logged
Volte, you wrote: "Simply put, I think it's a meaningless distinction, and not one that merits a new word."

Maybe it is a meaningless distinction, yes. Maybe it is a meaningful distinction. I am of two minds on this. Does it merit a new word? Maybe yes, maybe no. But let's discuss the idea and see where it takes us. I believe a major news story in the New York Times is developing on this as we speak, as the reporter in question may very well want to interview some of us here for quotes. Are you willing to give a quote on this topic, pro or con, or in the middle sitting on the fence, with your name and country noted in the newspaper?




danbloom
Newbie
Antarctica
zippy1300.blogspot.c
Joined 27/2/2009
(40 days ago)

Posts: 11
Logged on




danbloom, edit your language profile
08 April 2009 at 4:17am | IP Logged
Notice that I called my blog, see link,

"The End of the Printed Page, Newspapers, Books and Critical Thinking: Welcome to Screening" Which Replaces "Reading" as a Verb"

REASON: i feel that with the growth of online reading, replacing paper surface reading in the future, we will maybe witness the END of the printed page, newspapers and CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL THINKING, for better or worse.....

MAYBE?