SF Signal: Is Reading Better For You Than Watching TV?

Is Reading Better For You Than Watching TV?

A New York Times article (Study Links Drop in Test Scores to a Decline in Time Spent Reading) says there is an association between young people reading less and a decline in test scores. It's based on the report To Read or Not to Read [PDF link] by the National Endowment for the Arts, whose chairman is Dana Gioia. Here's an excerpt from the NYT piece:

Americans -- particularly young Americans -- appear to be reading less for fun, and as that happens, their reading test scores are declining. At the same time, performance in other academic disciplines like math and science is dipping for students whose access to books is limited, and employers are rating workers deficient in basic writing skills.
...
In an interview Mr. Gioia said that the statistics could not explain why reading had declined, but he pointed to several commonly accepted culprits, including the proliferation of digital diversions on the Internet and other gadgets, and the failure of schools and colleges to develop a culture of daily reading habits. In addition, Mr. Gioia said, "we live in a society where the media does not recognize, celebrate or discuss reading, literature and authors."

So, what I'm wondering - and this is partly based on past discussions - is what people are really doing instead of "reading for fun". Surfing the web? Watching TV?

There is an widely-accepted (or at least often stated) assumption that reading is a "smart" activity and is better for you than, say, watching TV or web surfing. I suppose that all depends on what you're watching and where you're surfing. I was told time and again while growing up (by teachers, parents, and TV commercials probably sponsored by NEFTA) that reading makes you smarter. This recent NEFTA report seems like some sort of proof. (I'm sure other proof exists out there -- I haven't gone looking. I also suspect there might be contrary evidence as well. Feel free to Google...)

Is reading better for you than watching TV? Does it matter what you watch, or is all casual reading a better activity?

I think reading can help you be better at spelling and writing. Just from frequently looking at words and sentence structure, some of it is bound to stick in your memory. Even though you have to read on the internet, grammar and spelling is often held to a much looser standard than a published book would be. Just my opinion, though.

Posted by Cheryl on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 7:52 AM

Reading has better special effects, sexier women, studlier guys (sometimes vice versa on those last two), more exciting action, better costumes, more realistic sets, than any movie, TV show or game! Because it's all in the imagination and there's no limits, not one! How can any multimillion dollar budget beat that? I mean, c'mon.

Reading is the best for telepathy and psi powers!

Plus, reading is much more graceful and flexible when filling in backstory, internal dialog, character motive, omniscient POV, and all the rest of the awesome storytelling devices that have been created around the campfire in the past 50,000 years.

You can tell any movie or TV story in written form, but you can't tell every written story in visual form. How would you make a movie of "The Persistence of Vision" (1979 Hugo winner)? Not going to happen, not without narrating all of the core action.

Posted by Matte Lozenge on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM

I think Cheryl has a good point: watching TV doesn't help spelling at all. Grammar maybe. Creativity hardly.

In our school district, we urge (as well as require) students to read more and test scores do improve. Whether this improves test question comprehension or improves the students' understanding of the world around them is not clearly defined.

Listening to dialog (TV) and reading dialog (reading) involves entirely different parts of the brain. So it would seem self-evident that reading would cause the reader to learn how dialog "looks", as opposed to "sounds". We don't talk like we write; anyone who does sounds stilted.

As far as Matta's comment: he's right. But more impressive to me is that he reads Varley! One of my favorite unsane authors! Anyway, Shakespeare had a similar problem in his plays, Hamlet in particular. He resolved this by using a lot of soliloquies; movies and TV use voice overs (captain's log on Star Trek) or flashbacks (Sybil comes to mind).

And the answer to the question John asked originally: my youngest son spends possible reading time playing video games; mine is spent surfing the web (and posting to blogs).

Posted by Old Bogus on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Of course reading is better for you than watching TV. Reading is active. Television viewing is passive.

The NEA report was interesting, but gives few solutions to the problem. Here's a powerful essay on one way to turn students back into readers:

http://darkpartyreview.blogspot.com/2007/11/essay-fixing-our-reading-problem.html

Posted by GFS3 on Thursday November 29, 2007 at 8:29 PM

hmm.. we dont really know about this..
we are having problems in doing our general paper essay.
the topic is `a day spent without reading is a day wasted. what is your view?'
so we are trying to compare any activity such as watching tv, which is better..
we are a bit confused now...
the topic looks simple..but...need to think more on to it..
wish us luck..
thanx..bye!!

Posted by myzah and naz on Monday May 19, 2008 at 11:01 PM