by Julie Moos
Aug. 11, 2011
Aug. 12, 2011
You riff on the comparison between records and newspapers.
[View the story "'Print is the new vinyl'" on Storify]
We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.
Pingback: The Morning Lowdown 08-12-11 — paidContent
I have been saying for yaers and nobody will listen to me or report this news that reading on paper is superior brain wise in terms of brain chemistry for three vital things: info processing, info retention and info analysis….and future MRI and PET scan studies will show that when we read on paper different parts of the brain light up for these three items…..and are vastly superior to the parts that light up for reading on screens, which i call “screening” since it is not really reading per se. Anne Mangen and Maryanne Wolf among others are studying this. Why don’t you inteview them someday. My hunch will be proven right. Why do you ignore my research, Julie? Screens are for quick takes, and i love em….but paper is forever…….wake up! interview me!
Hip, or just oriented towards quality.
I’m not sure how to take the reactions to John’s quip. “Hip”? Yeah, I do remember when CDs came out (my hair is quite gray now) and sticking with vinyl records was considered a badge of honor by some. But long being an early adopter, I thought those clinging to scratchy records and rejecting the crystal-clear new digital sound from CDs were off their rockers. True to form, today I still can’t fathom those who pine for the feel of print and ink on their hands over an interactive digital experience. 8^)
Hipsters? Print journalists? Since when?
© 2013 The Poynter Institute