Welcome to Glass House Sign in | Help

A Tale of Two Headlines/Stories

Front page of the Seattle Times, story by USA Today: "Young or old, fewer Americans reading just for fun, studies find." I read the lede of the story, nothing new here, moving on.

Same study, as seen in the New York Times: "Study Links Drop in Test Scores to a Decline in Time Spent Reading." (note to self, I kinda like the way the NYT does all cap headlines, check to see I'm consistent here on Glass House.)

Wow, what a difference some perspective makes. For USA Today, the lede of the story is this:

WASHINGTON — Despite rising education levels, a decade of Harry Potter and the near-ubiquity of big-chain bookstores, Americans of every age are reading less and less for pleasure these days, according to an analysis being released today by the National Endowment for the Arts.

The decline, the study warns, could have grim consequences as people tune out books, tune in popular culture and become less socially and civically engaged.

That's right, the big problem is social engagement. Now, here is the lede of the NYT:

Harry Potter, James Patterson and Oprah Winfrey’s book club aside, 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.

See the difference? Instead of social engagement, the problem is declining job skills, test scores (to include math and science) that could eventually lead to decreased productivity.

I guess that saying "consider the source" is a good one -- and for today at least, USA Today should *not* be that source.

Published Monday, November 19, 2007 7:39 AM by FrankShaw

Comments

 

Guest said:

Consider the source--? Why isn't the source to consider the report itself? How do you know what "the problem is" if you haven't read it?

November 20, 2007 3:38 PM
 

FrankShaw said:

yes, the report itself is the source. I'd say in this case the NYT is a good proxy, but no so much USA Today.

November 20, 2007 3:47 PM
 

Mark Hanson said:

Interesting contrast of the two stories. The drop in social and civic engagement that the USA Today raised is certainly of concern, but the NYT took it a step further: not only noting the social implications, but also touching on the tangible consequences. I don't necessarily think that either of these is less important, but coverage in the NYT gives a much more comprehensive picture.

November 21, 2007 2:06 PM

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

WE reserves the right to refuse to post or to edit or remove, in whole or in part, any Information that is, in WE's sole discretion, unacceptable, undesirable or in violation of these rules.
Submit

Syndication



» Blogs that link here
» View my profile

Powered by Technorati