…yes, it was possible to overcome screen inferiority in learning and calibration – but only for those who preferred reading from screens.
Caroline Myrberg, Ninna Wiberg, “Screen vs. paper: what is the difference for reading and learning?”. UKSG Insights 28(2), pp. 49-54. July 7, 2015
Haven’t purchased hard copy newspapers regularly for maybe ten years now. Too much pileup. Try to remain informed online. End up feeling dumbed down. Click on one article, but no sense of glance across.
Somebody left newspaper on a table. Happens on occasion. Will pick it up and start to read, remaining concerned about the pileup. In a short period of time, feeling that much more has been learned, across subjects, simply because it is in one’s hands, and the eyes scroll and scan. No linear click and onto the next, or onto nothing, just get off the site.
More than that. How one perceives information. How one processes it. How one retains it.
Evidence is mixed. Initially it would appear that print remains superior in terms of intellectual processing and development, though part of this appears to relate to whether there was a period in one’s background where print was the primary information source. Or, as discussed by Ferris Jabr in “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper versus Screens“, Scientific American, April 11, 2013: