Newspaper or Screen? Who Really Chooses the News We See

Umberto Eco saw the search for truth as an endless process of questioning, dialogue, and interpretation. In his view, knowledge is not about passively absorbing information; it requires historical awareness, critical analysis, and intellectual alertness. In today’s age of digital information overload, his ideas are more relevant than ever. The problem now is not a lack of information, but how we take it in, judge it, and ultimately use it to shape our understanding of the world.

From Reading to Consuming Information

For decades, newspapers, magazines, and above all books were the main sources of news and intellectual growth. Reading took time, focus, and personal effort. Readers chose their publications, wrestled with arguments, went back to earlier pages, and reflected. Their relationship with information was not so closely tied to systems that track their behavior and compete for their attention.

Today, that picture has changed dramatically. According to the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025, traditional news sources are in decline, while more people are getting their news through social media and digital platforms. Data from the Pew Research Center in the United States also shows differences by education level: college graduates are more likely to turn to news websites, podcasts, and newsletters, while those without a degree rely more heavily on social media. These patterns point to very different paths to the news.

The Hidden Cost of Free News

What matters most is not just the change in medium but the change in business model. When we buy a newspaper or pay for a subscription, the deal is clear. On free digital platforms, however, the price is often paid with our attention and data about our behavior, which algorithms use to decide what content we see.

Readers of a print newspaper all see essentially the same set of stories in the same order of importance. By contrast, each user of a digital platform may live in a different information bubble, shaped by their searches, preferences, and reactions. Content that stirs strong emotions, such as anger, fear, or outrage, is often favored because it draws more attention and engagement than calm, well-researched analysis. At the same time, platforms tend to show us views that confirm what we already believe, creating a feedback loop that can limit our exposure to other perspectives and deepen polarization.

This is not necessarily deliberate manipulation. Rather, it is how the attention economy works, turning the time we spend staring at screens into profit. The danger is that, without realizing it, we may end up with a fragmented or distorted picture of reality. News no longer competes only on credibility, but also on its ability to provoke a reaction.

Turning Away From Books and Losing Depth

Even more worrying is the gradual shift away from long-form writing and books. Growing used to short, easily digestible, constantly changing content encourages a culture of rushed information consumption. Reading gives way to skimming, arguments to slogans, and depth to first impressions. The more we get used to the instant reward of images and short videos, the harder it may become to patiently follow a complex line of thought.

Books, however, are not simply an older way of delivering content. They are a form of mental exercise. They ask us to stay with an idea, face our doubts, and understand things that cannot be summed up in a few lines. Losing this kind of reading experience risks weakening the skills we need for critical thinking and participation in democracy.

Teaching Children Is a Social Priority

In this environment, teaching children how to approach the media is essential. Families and schools must help them learn early on to tell information from misinformation and well-founded opinions from shallow impressions. It is not enough for children to be comfortable using digital devices; they also need to understand how and why the content they see is chosen for them. Above all, they need to become familiar with books, newspapers, and regular reading so they develop independent thinking, not just the ability to consume information quickly.

Choosing a Newspaper as an Act of Independence

The answer is not to demonize technology, nor to turn quality journalism into a privilege for those who can afford it. What we need is critical education, digital literacy, transparency in how algorithms work, and a conscious choice of reliable sources.

Choosing to read a newspaper and financially supporting responsible journalism can be acts of personal independence, even though they do not, on their own, guarantee impartiality. What matters most is knowing who produces the information that reaches us, who pays for it, and who decides what we see.

In the end, perhaps the key divide of the future will not be between print and digital, or simply between free and paid content. It will be between the news we choose for ourselves and the news that is chosen for us, and between the person who reads, thinks, and questions and the user who merely scrolls and watches.