Who wants to buy a newspaper? They're nothing but advertisements.

Thanks for the commentary and suggestion. The first issue that I consider is that how to appease subscribers and advertisers, unless you're doing this so far in advance. Plus could any newspaper survive a week without any revenue? Not to mention if you're still paying the salaries of everyone. (I doubt the workers can go a whole week off without pay.)

As a former newspaper journalist and now involved in online marketing, I could also suggest checking out a recently released white paper I authored offering another solution. You can download it for free at reelseo.com/newspapers.

screening…..; new word coinage? good? works? >
http://www.urbandictionary.com.....=screening
>
> screening ………………… 12,678 thumbs up
>
> To read text on a computer screen, cellphone screen,
> Kindle screen or
> PDA screen or BlackBerry screen; replaces the term
> "reading" which now
> only refers to reading print text on paper
> "I hate reading print newspapers now. I do all my
> screening online."
screening…..; new word coinage? good? works?

well, yes, just food for thought…….because i find that reading
text on a screen is vastly different in terms of reading print on
paper…….intellectually diffferent too…..on paper we can circle
words, color colors, underline words, annotate in margins and re- read
whole paragraphs to let it sink it and analyze…but online we read
fast and furious for quick INFo but not in depth THINKING…the brain
takes the info in diffrently, i am sure………so i coined SCREENING
to refer to this new kind of reading…….i am sure it will nEVER
catch on ,b ut we do need a new word…..any ideas?

"Reading" online will never be the same! — "Screening" enters the
online vocabulary.

Do you "screen" news online, or do you "read" news in print
newspapers? — A new word has been coined to refer to reading
information online, changing the way we take in information

by Dan Bloom

NEW YORK — What you are doing now is not reading, but
"screening." Yes, you are at this very moment screening the text
printed digitally on this computer screen. You are not reading text on
a paper surface; you are "screening" this article through the lens of
the computer screen in front of you. A new word is born — screening!

When a top computer industry writer at the New York Times was told
about this new term, he told RushPRnews in a one-word email note:
"Hmmmmmmm."

Screening? Can anyone just coin a new word and make it stick? No, but
new words are coined every day, and some stick and some don't. Time
will tell whether or not "screening" (to mean "reading information on
a computer screen, as distinct from reading a print newspaper or
magazine or book") will stay with us or not. For now, the word has
been accepted by the editors at urbandictionary.com and is listed
here:

http://www.urbandictionary.com.....=screening

Screening is defined as: "To read text on a computer screen, cellphone
screen, Kindle screen or PDA screen or BlackBerry screen; replaces the
term "reading" which now only refers to reading print text on paper."

Example: "I hate reading print newspapers now. I do all my screening online."

The word is so new, not everyone has seen it yet. And many do not
agree with its coinage.
Amit Gilboa, an Israeli writer living in Singapore, told RushPRnews:
"No, it's still reading. Whether in a book, a print newspaper,
chalkboard, whiteboard, it's still reading words made up of letters.
Screening is still reading."

However, Hidetoshi Abe in Tokyo, Japan, told this reporter he likes
the new term and agrees it fits our new Internet age. "I think
'screening' makes perfect sense to represent the way we now take in
information via computer screens. It's a whole new ballgame."

Reading, of course, is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols
printed on
a paper surface for the purpose of deriving meaning (reading
comprehension) and/or constructing meaning, according to scholars.
Written information on a
printed page is received by the retina, processed by the primary
visual cortex, and interpreted in Wernicke's area.

But when we "read" online (or "screen", in the new coinage), the
digitalized information is processed in a different way. Reading
online is the same thing as reading on a paper surface in a book or
magazine or newspaper.

Reading on a print paper surface is a means of language acquisition,
of communication, and of sharing information and ideas. Screening on
the Internet is a horse
of a different color.

Readers of print paper texts use a variety of reading strategies to
assist with decoding (to translate symbols into sounds or visual
representations of language), and comprehension. Screening online uses
other strategies, and the information is processed by our brains in a
different way as well.

Reading text on print paper is now an important way for the general
population in many societies to access information and make meaning.
However, a new form of reading, called "screening" now takes place when a
person "reads" text on a computer screen or PDA screen or cellphone
screen. This form of reading, now called "screening", is a very
different form of communcation.

You have just "screened" your very first article online using this new
term. You are now an Internet screener. Congratulations, and welcome
to this amazing new world.

Comments are more than welcome, pro and con.

This is the silliest thing I have ever "read" online. Reading is reading, whether it be books, magazines, streets signs, billboards, or computer screens. If you want to "screen," go to Hollywood where they "screen" films all the time.

If reading on a monitor promotes less intuitive or deep-thinking comprehension of aggregated symbols, it is not the fault of the medium, it is the fault of the reader.

My wife and I are voracious readers; but it takes me twice as long to read a novel because of our different reading styles. She's reading for content, I'm reading for content and style. I'll pore over a paragraph's structure to see how it was assembled by the author, which slows me down, but provides me with immeasurable enjoyment. But I'm talking about fiction. I rarely read nonfiction in similar fashion. I read it quickly and straight forward to glean its information.

Content on the Internet is rarely fiction (or is not presented as such). It's information: News, FAQs, weather, etc. I don't find the need to parse an author's style, although when I bump into well written material of any genre, I enjoy it.

So I don't buy into this "us vs. them" mentality of screening vs. reading. Reading is reading. If you write a novel on a computer instead of using pen and ink on paper, does that make the outcome different? Does typing something on a typewriter make it different than a document typed on a computer?

Semantic gymnastics. And for what purpose?

Dear Lee Lupo and Helpful Gardner over at TreeHugger,

First, HelpFul Gardner said:

"Hmmmmmmmm…

While I have been aware for some time that the process is decidedly different between paper and e-formats for me, I hesitate to begin assigning new words for it. While I do not tend towards conservatism as a whole (my more conservative friends think I'm just to the right of Che Guevara), here I might urge caution…

Sure, slang comes and goes and there is generally little sociological effect, ("groovy" becomes "cool" becomes "sweet" in a quite benign way), I fear this new word is simply a reaction to a phenomenon I have noticed a lot lately; the exultant declaration "I don't read books." A decade or two back this would have been met with the constern gaze reserved for the slightly deficient by most Americans I now find it heralded and seconded often as not. It is as if the act of picking up a book has become old fashioned, and to remain hip and trendy one must not embrace this antiquated practice. Yet as noted above, I find the two forms, while ostensibly the same, to be far different processes for me, and I suspect this to be a ubiquitous trait. To whit…

An old friend, a pioneer in the organic landscape trade, was discussing books with me and we got to the topic of older books. We were both of a mind that much good organic culture lore had been lost to time because these older books have fallen out of print, and along with them many good sustainable ideas. When I asked her her favorite example(with mine in mind already) I was surprised to find they were one and the same, causing us to carry on like school kids for a half hour, comparing favorite parts and tips. Inthe end was the sad lament that other than a few geeks like ourselves, these ideas were likely gone from the general milieu until reintroduced in a "modern" format. That was NOT due to the aging of the medium but the shift to "better living through chemicals" mentality that has carried from the 20's to today; the book became obsolete because, as a societal whole, the idea was deemed obsolete. Yet here Nancy and I are, two respected people in their field, talking about these ideas, now new again with better understanding of the true costs and effects of chemical culture, and without this tangible link to the past, this book, our understanding of our chosen profession and passionate cause would be much diminished.

Words are symbology, a jumble of otherwise meaningless scribbles given meaning by agreement of the whole to recognize that symbol as a component of an idea. One has simply to READ Joseph Campbell's work on symbols to recognize the power of symbols. My worry is that to give a word to this different form of reading is to give power to the move away from books; in that move we stand to lose a great deal of information and certainly in this day and age of mutable spelling, LOL and OMG, we risk dumbing down our language and the ability to convey ideas as we erode our vocabularies. Words hold concise and specific meaning and many of these are being lost as we speak because we no longer find them in current use. Should we lose that link to the past that is a book, they may go forever, and that would be a tragedy.

So let's keep it READING, shall we? And if any of you had trouble with any of the words in this post, pick up a book. I find "screening" doesn't exercise your brain like reading…

HG (a three book a week reading junkie)"
from Helpful Gardener

Danny said to HG: "Well said, and I agree with you 99.9 percent. I am a book reader, too, paper reading, three daily newspapers a day, and I want to make it clear in now way am I saying it is cool NOT to be reader of print on paper things. I am a bookman from way back. But I also spend a good part of my time now reading online, and yes, it is READING, the term is still READING.

But given the fact that the way we read is different depending on whether we are onpaper or online MIGHT JUST make it sensible to find a new word for this new phenomenon of reading on a screen, not to say that one reading phemon is better than the other, just that they are different. So: SCREENING.

That's all. A mind exercise, a thought experiment. Nothing written concrete. Time will tell what we call READING ONLINE in the future. We might just end up calling it "reading online". :D

But I am curious to know what others think of coining a new word for reading online and what that coinage might be. I started off with SCREENING, and many people told me they like it and it makes sense. Others have said there is no need for a need word for reading online, since it is READING. But let's see what the zetigist comes out with. This discussion here has been very informative and thought-provoking and I thank everyone who has ventured into the waters of this chat topic. Thanks."

That said, here is another comment, also welcome and I read it over a few times, from [b]Lee Lupo [/b]over at [u]jossip.com [/u]who [b]opined[/b]:

[i]This is the silliest thing I have ever "read" online. Reading is reading, whether it be books, magazines, streets signs, billboards, or computer screens. If you want to "screen," go to Hollywood where they "screen" films all the time.

If reading on a monitor promotes less intuitive or deep-thinking comprehension of aggregated symbols, it is not the fault of the medium, it is the fault of the reader.

My wife and I are voracious readers; but it takes me twice as long to read a novel because of our different reading styles. She's reading for content, I'm reading for content and style. I'll pore over a paragraph's structure to see how it was assembled by the author, which slows me down, but provides me with immeasurable enjoyment. But I'm talking about fiction. I rarely read nonfiction in similar fashion. I read it quickly and straight forward to glean its information.

Content on the Internet is rarely fiction (or is not presented as such). It's information: News, FAQs, weather, etc. I don't find the need to parse an author's style, although when I bump into well written material of any genre, I enjoy it.

So I don't buy into this "us vs. them" mentality of screening vs. reading. Reading is reading. If you write a novel on a computer instead of using pen and ink on paper, does that make the outcome different? Does typing something on a typewriter make it different than a document typed on a computer?

Semantic gymnastics. And for what purpose?[/i]

http://forums.treehugger.com/v.....239#p64239

JOey says, in amplified email to me later:

Danny

I don't know if SCREENING will catch on, but then we have "browse" and "surf" so
it just might. I think it has to be one syllable though to really
catch on and "screen" is.

Other words we use in the Internet world that came from the other, earlier words include:

BCC for blind carbon copy even though there is no carbon involved on the Net
FLAMING, a FLAME
homePAGE
SIGNATURE, even thugh it is not a real signature at all
E-MAIL is not really U.S. Postal Service MAIL at all
BLOG comes from Web Log, and a log was a ship captain's operations diary
A PEN that is used on some PDA's is not a real PEN at all, no ink involved
SPAM is not SPAM the food
the MOUSE has nothing to do with a real MOUSE
a CHAT ROOM is not really a room at all, and people are not literally CHATTING
drive-by spamming is not about a car driving by on a street in Los Angeles
even the word ADDRESS for your email address is not a real ADDRESS for your home
the list goes on and on

So why not adapt SCREENING as a new term for reading online? Yes, why not?

Joey

Colorado blogging

Re: "Screening" online versus "reading" on paper
by danbloom on Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:42 am

A very good post on another forum about this very topic, showing how SCREENING as a new word for reading online MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY AT ALL. Read it. It is great food for thought, too: — Danny

Dear Danny,
One item that I wanted to throw into the pile, Danny, is that I have used an ebook reader for roughly 6 years now, an old Rocket Ebook (REB1100). Before that I used to read books entirely in dead tree format, but now I almost never do, excepting special cases where I really want to read something and it is not available in any electronic format.

Many people have discussed the 'emotional attachment' to holding a paper book versus reading a work from an electronic device, but for me, along with millions of others, the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. One major benefit is that ebooks are usually 30-80% cheaper than even a paperback of the same book. Another is that one can read in the dark, which helps those of us who are nightowl readers with spouses who are asleep (opposed to fumbling with a clip on light). Although I am certainly not an environmental extremophile (to coin a neologism), ebooks when distributed en masse have a much lower carbon footprint, so I have read anyways, versus the energy required to fabricate a regular paper book, even accounting for battery drainage of the device.

Now, by 2009 standards the old Rockets are "low res" devices - 352×480, also known as "half VGA". By comparison, the more modern Amazon Kindle is about 400% more resolute using the new E-Ink technology. From what I understand, the resolution of E-Ink will have to roughly double to approach the resolution of the standard printed page used by the major publishers (meaning, the human eye will not be able to differentiate betweent he two excepting the paper grain in a regular book).

Ebooks are really doing pretty well right now. Amazon's Kindle division is already well heeled to the point that they are set to release Kindle 2.0 - a new product in a time where very few companies are even tackling new engineering projects.
Tradtonal ebook sites like Fictionwise.Com are holding their own with a dedicated customer base using the older ebook readers like the REB1100 and 1150.

Having read over 240 books on this old Rocket Ebook (Fictonwise keeps all ebooks in a library for me, forever), for one I can safely say that the emotional enjoyment that I feel after reading a good book is no less satisfying and not prejudiced to the medium. This is not true, however, when reading a book on a smaller, less comfortable viewing device like a PDA or even the iPhone.

Remember, that when Gutenberg first set out to capture the "Church market" by using movable type (and cheaper alternatives to vellum), there was opposition to this method - manly complaints that the letters appeared boring repetitive and mechanical, which suggested that mass-produced books were not even worth the time of the reader.
Gutenberg et al. attempted to offset these reacly complaints by adding hand painted calligraphics on the margins.

In the end, there was no new word invented for reading this newfangled 'machine-type' versus traditional hand copied books of the day. Contrasted to the shocking modernity of Gutenberg and his new movable type printing in the 15th century, it turned out that using typefaces became the industry standard, and at that for over 6 centuries to the current day.

Ebooks are still historically new, and the devices, to be sure, still have a ways to go before becoming mainstream, everyday carriers of the written word (note that movable mechanical type wasn't mainstream for almost a century after Gutenberg's death!). I am fairly confident that, in time (15-30 years?) younger people will eventually say "Did you know that they used to print all books on paper?" much like we would say, "Wow did you know that for 6,500 years they used to copy every book by hand?"

And finally,
If a book is written well, it will be enjoyable regardless of delivery medium (excepting tiny devices like iPhones and PDAs).
Readng was reading when the Sumerians etched Cuneiform onto clay jars, reading was reading when words were viewed on Monk-copied vellum, it was (and is) reading on regular paper stock, and it's still "reading" if you are using an electronic device.

The one thing that a Sumerian clay jar, a vellum book of Exodus, a copy of City In Mind, and ebook version of a Burroughs' novel and the very letters that you are looking at right now, have in common, is that these are a series of symbols representing ideas in a linear form, creating a contrasting differential between the symbols themselves and the medium on which they are written (or rendered).

And that, my friend, is reading.

-Whew.