Everyone reads. That is undeniable in a context of literacy. So, at this point, the important thing is not to read, but what to read.
When we publish a statistic about the number of books that are read in a year, we should neither rejoice nor disappoint us, because nothing really reveals to us what people are reading (spinning fine, we only know what they are buying or say they are reading). Everyone reads, from a soap label in the shower to Facebook, but if it's sheets stuck and served by an editorial, so it seems that the reading is qualitatively higher. But no.
Differentiate between The prodigious enzyme (because it is a book) or The brand (because it is a sports newspaper) is unproductive. What is relevant is the type of reading, and then we leave behind the unproductive and go into the thorny. What some studies do suggest, however, is that there could be a qualitative difference that is not negligible between reading on-line and reading offline.
The concentration in reading on-line, as well as the time spent in a long text, seems less than in reading offline. In the last report prepared by the consultant comScore, the daily reading of the daily press is growing month by month, compared to the decrease in traditional press consumption.
In the United States alone, the digital press records a fixed audience of 176 million unique readers. This penetration is due, above all, to mobile readers, such as the smartphone or tablet. The biggest challenge of the press, in these conditions, is that the reader stay longer reading (in order to increase online advertising investment).
But the data reveals that the exposure time to a digital newspaper is shorter compared to a paper newspaper: the online version of The New York Times is 4.6 minutes, and This is the newspaper that obtained the best results.
When we read in a physical book we can concentrate for longer than if we read an electronic text in which hypertext abounds in a medium that probably has an Internet connection, you can receive emails and WhatsApp messages, etc.
Erping Zhu He conducted an experiment to prove it, inviting two different groups of people to read the same fragment of an online text. He discovered that understanding diminished as the number of hyperlinks increased.
This is the power of written texts. They can cultivate knowledge or ignorance. And depending on whether you read online or offline it seems that can be understood or partially assimilated.