Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorOhh
TL;DR: The Washington Post's article seems to jump to conclusions not inferred by the PEW study.
The PEW study referenced article starts with this paragraph.
"The amount of time that Americans ages 60 and older spend on their TVs, computers, tablets or other electronic devices has risen almost half an hour per day over the past decade, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, even as screen time among younger people has more or less held steady."
This PEW study doesn't compare reading to TV it compares reading to screen time. I do all my reading from a screen. From ebooks to articles most of my screen time is reading. The article goes on to say.
"This rise in screen time coincides with significant growth in the adoption of digital technology by older Americans. In 2000, 14% of those ages 65 and older were internet users; now 73% are. And while smartphone ownership was uncommon at all ages around the turn of the 21st century, now about half (53%) of people 65 and older are smartphone owners."
The Washington Post's leap that this might mean increased risk of cognitive decline may not be quite accurate since the article they linked to was only referring to TV not computers, tablets or other electronic devices.
I'm not going to comment further on what seems like sloppy reporting. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumpynose
It's only sloppy if you expect journalists to be accurate and understand what they're reporting on. For grabbing eyeballs and entertaining readers it's undoubtedly top-notch reporting.
See my previous rant, my first response in this thread.
|
I think the charge of "sloppy reporting" is an overreach; perhaps the real problem is hasty reading. The links in the articles reference several different studies, not just American Time Use Survey and the PEW analysis. The specific "cognitive decline" suggestion came from a
study analyzing data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Likewise the list of other possible ill effects of increased screen time came from other studies linked in the
WaPo article.
I think it's apparent that the term
screen time does not include reading books on e-reader or tablet, since the PEW study, for example, contrasts "reading and socializing" with screen time. But, yes, the term could have been better defined.
I don't see the article as "sloppy"; I see it as an attempt to synthesize several studies, each with its own conclusions and parameters.