My father used to read the dead-tree newspapers every morning. I'm now reading them online. Is it fair to count that time as an increase of my screen time?
I guess there are some similar examples, like looking for cooking recipes in a book vs online, or paper-encyclopedia vs wikipedia.
I do think there are a couple big differences between physical newspapers and digital news: endless scrolling feeds and algorithmic recommendations can make digital news much more addicting.
Newspapers have a definite beginning and end, and they're easier to browse. Each section starts with a big, high-level snapshot of its contents, and it's easy to zoom in on the bits that interest you and disregard the rest.
I agree. You can't believe how many linkbait titles the digital edition has!
Anyway, I'm some of the journalist have a daily column that is usualy good, and I try to stick to them (but after them, I must confess that I read some silly linkbait articles.)
Obviously it counts as 'screen time', as you're using a screen.
But 'screen time' is not the right statistic for each question.
"Does screen time affect eyesight?" Yes, this counts as screen time.
"Is this generation more/less informed about what's going on in the world?" Screen time is not the right stat, the data should be 'does this generation read news papers' and both you and your father can answer with a yes.
FYI, I read a dead-tree newspaper during my breakfast. Primarily because I don't want to be staring at a screen while having food with my kids, but for some reason I'm okay with staring at a dead-tree during breakfast.
I guess there are some similar examples, like looking for cooking recipes in a book vs online, or paper-encyclopedia vs wikipedia.