Is reading dead? Or dying?

In the early 1980s, when I was a daily newspaper reporter, USA Today made its debut and revolutionized the industry. Say what you might about it (e.g., lots of glitz, not enough depth), but while many of my contemporaries back then were scoffing, I looked at it and concluded: "What's the problem? Their pages are colorful and attractive to the eye. And their stories are shorter and easier to digest." Clearly, the paper's owner, Gannett, put reader habits ahead of trying to come off as an authority in the realm of newspaper journalism.

That said, USA Today was responding not only to the habits of readers, but American society as a whole. We are a nation of short attention spans that, for the most part, has eschewed deep thought for the quick message. Political campaigns and political commentary focus more on sound bites and slogans (Remember KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid -- in the 1992 presidential campaign?) and loud, mostly meaningless chatter that may make for great theater, but doesn't inspire anyone to think about the real issues.

Taking this issue deeper, think about kids who would rather spend an hour watching YouTube than reading a book. Even when you're applying for a job, the hiring manager will probably spend 15 seconds looking at your resume before deciding whether to call you in for an interview. And that's if he or she gets the resume in the first place. Now, businesses have software that scan resumes for keywords. Don't have enough of them? Sorry! You don't have a chance!

But that's our society today, like it or not. Skeptical? Try reading this piece from Killian Advertising and tell me whether you agree.