|
The title is not really representative of what the article is arguing. The article is not saying 'paper is better than digital', they are saying there is something called 'deep reading' that is undermined or at least marginalized by a preponderance of 'shallow reading' (twitter, facebook, etc).
As most of us here know, both paper and digital support 'deep reading', but digital is simultaneously better suited to 'shallow reading' (as well as watching cat videos, playing games, messaging etc.).
The more of the latter you do, the less of the former, and some atrophy of deep reading skills is a predictable result. There's nothing very surprising or controversial about that.
|