Yep, the Internet is particularly great for people with short attention spans, who apparently can only read and write a few sentences at a time, without any depth or focus.
I've written for a bunch of magazines AND websites, and one interesting aspect of the net/print question is that even though the Internet can publish much longer, in-depth articles at far less expense than printing them on paper, Internet articles are usually shorter and provide less actual information. The exception is when they're "reprints" of paper-published articles, but many of those are edited to much shorter length for the short attention span of Internet (and "smart" phone) users.
I don't disagree John, but the internet shines at always having scads of fresh content (even if much of it is suspect).
It takes me about an hour to read most magazines these days. With many of them, there's so little actual content relative to advertising that I feel taken advantage of. Sports Afield is particularly well done, and so is Rifle Shooter. The magazine that SCI puts out is exceptional, and it's FULL of legitimate content (though it's a little heavy on the "here's how my hunt went" articles).
The worst of the bunch to me are the NRA magazines; dear God those are horrible. Outdoor Life has gotten absurdly bad as well, as every other issue is a new-gear roundup, and they try to appeal to too wide an audience. I bought a copy of Petersen's Turkey Hunting the other day, and it was comical how little content was in there. It was like reading a pamphlet at the doctor's office.
