Bad Writing About Reading

Last Sunday's San Jose Mercury News contains a reprinted talk by the chair of the NEA on the importance of reading. His argument boils down to two points:

• "What literature does is put us in the inner lives of other people--in the dailyness of their existence."
  
• "If you are a reader, you are overwhelmingly more likely to engage in positive social and civic behavior, versus non-readers."
  

I don't disagree with the author's point--being able to read well is important--but his argument is a terrible one. On the first point: why are we to believe that reading is any better at this than television? Surely a multimedia experience can give better insight on someone's live.

The second point is a classic confusion of correlation and causation. The author cites numerous statistics showing that readers are more likely to go to museums, do charity work, exercise, etc. This proves nothing. These people are probably simply inquisitive and intellectually curious; reading didn't necessarily make them this way.