I ask because not all or not even most bookworms seem to think they are intellectually superior.
I get that reading itself is good brain exercise. But why would it matter if You’re reading the daily news or reading a novel?
I suppose novels provoke you to visualizing the world building the author is doing.
But is it really that big of a difference?
A novel probably is better for your blood pressure than is reading the news.
So there’s that.
I’m interested if there is any research on this. Despite my retirement, I realized I’m reading less fiction but more articles/discussion than before.
Part of it is I feel I’ve read nearly all the DiscWorld novels I want.
Are we talking about the health benefits of reading? Has it actually been established that there are any (besides reading warning signs)?
A novel (or a non-fiction book) keeps you engaged in the subject for an extended period.
Newspaper articles keep shifting topics every few minutes, assuming you stick with every article to the bitter end.
Online news is a cacophony of words, pictures, ads, and videos trying to encourage you to click and change topics constantly.
I think it would depend heavily on which book, and which newspaper. “Reading level” matters. We have one local paper that is aimed at a very low reading level. Reading it is better than not reading at all, but probably not as good as reading a complex novel, with different sentence structures, the use of literary devices like metaphors and the like.
Similarly, reading the New York Times is probably better than “See Spot run”.
Lol you make an excellent point!
News these days tends to be depressing. But as I’ve gotten older I’ve become less and less interested in reading fiction. So I guess my answer would be “neither”. So what do I read? I like well written entertaining accounts of historical non-fiction, like the works of Erik Larson. Or books like Fabulous Science by John Waller, a fascinating examination of the myths that have grown around historically famed scientists, who often were a lot more flawed than their modern refurbished image. Or the works of science popularizers like Sean Carroll or, in the past, the great Carl Sagan.
That’s somewhat how I feel about fiction (see my post immediately above) but if by “articles/discussion” you mean opinion pieces, I often find those to be the worst combination of news (depressing) and fiction (the product of someone’s imagination). Hence I gravitate to non-political non-fiction.
Novels are a lot longer than a news article, so there’s that.
Reading fiction puts you inside the heads of people (albeit fictional people), and shows you how they think and feel and see the world, in ways that news stories can’t. It appeals to the imagination and the emotions as well as the rational mind. There has been research that shows that reading fiction (at least, character-based fiction) makes people more empathetic (and I would agree with that based on my own personal experience).
Amen to that brother. I go through a lot of news every day (part of my job) and it definitely raises the blood pressure.
To the OP I would say the entire writing style is different. A novel and a news article are just…different. Different in the words they use, different in their goals, different in structure.
I am not sure “better” is the word to use. If you want a better vocabulary and explore the world through stories and words then novels are better by far. If you want to know what it happening, news articles are better by far.
Everyone should read some of both (with the caveat that some are shit and are probably best not to read). I don’t think reading “50 Shades of Grey” or Newsmax will help anyone.
I say this as a former journalist who’s proud of my attention to the craft.
Newspapers have traditionally been written for a middle-school/high school vocabulary, and most mainstream magazines are about the same. While novels can be written at that level (e.g., Mickey Spillane) most of them aspire to something higher and more complex.
I suppose it’s comparable to a snapshot vs. a really good painting. The snapshot may give you all the information you need, but the painting adds richness and depth that takes time to sink in.
It’s better for your attention span, focusing on one thing for a while, rather than bouncing all over many different topics
Most of the people I know that don’t like reading novels also don’t have good attention spans.
News articles tell you what’s going on in the world, novels help you have the patience to tell what matters.
Also, as others have mentioned, reading fiction does increase empathy, as it puts you in the minds of people that aren’t you. It lets you experience other points of view that don’t really come across in other formats.
Empathy is also something that tends to be lacking in people who don’t read novels, and that is something that we could use a whole lot more of.
Is one better than the other? I wouldn’t say so, they are different contexts for different purposes. But I would say that it’s best to have a healthy mix of both.
I can’t say anything about being better for you, but I can say it feels very different. With fiction I get into this imaginary world. Even a long article doesn’t do that.
It’s similar to TV vs Internet video essays. But most people would act like that documentary was better for you than watching that high drama TV show.
It’s interesting how things are reversed.
My first professional publication included having my students assess Hirsch’s book Cultural Literacy, in part by counting the references in Hirsch’s list that appeared on the front page of three papers–USA Today had very few, the local paper was middling, and NYT had so many that the editor contacted me to be sure it wasn’t a typo.
The best novels explore deep and universal truths about the human condition, in a way that engages us on a more emotional and complex level than just reading non-fiction books about Philosophy and History.
Reading the news is good because it keeps us informed and up to date on what is currently happening in our world.
Both important for fighting ignorance, in different but somewhat related ways.
True But I was thinking how I spend a typical lazy day off.
I can spend all day reading various news articles. Science type articles and social platforms like this one.
Yeah it’s sans the fancy vocabulary but it’s still reading ALL day.
As noted by a few others, I suspect that one of the biggest differences is length.
I’ve clearly noted that people are having a harder and harder time with being able to maintain focus on a single thing for an extended duration. And, minus that ability, it can be difficult to fully reason through and accomplish certain tasks or - in the case of the written word - properly take in the underlying details that underpin the top line message. But, if you’re reading something like an opinion piece, a research paper, or whatever, then ensuring that you understand the details is critical to ensuring that the conclusion that was reached actually follows from the evidence that was given.
Aaah yes, Internet-Initiated Attention Deficit or IIAD. At least that’s my name for it.
We all have it some, but some of us have it bad.
At least us pre-internet fogeys can remember vaguely what it was like to be able to pay attention; those damned kids on my lawn have no idea. 
