Another – yes another! – referenece to print as "dead trees"*. How convenient – it suggests in one catchy, repeated (and repeated) phrase that print itself is dead and that the internet and iPads etc are saving the planet. Just think of all those living trees now we use iPads! (Evidence?) Yet iPads and computers use rare metals, are usually not recycled, need charging and already use more energy than old methods of printing and distributing. And much print uses grown trees (paper usually doesn't use randomly "killed", non-replaced, trees; what a strange business model that would be). ie: much print is from trees that are farmed, grown. Or from recycled paper.
So if you like iPads, fine. If you use the internet a lot (like me), fine. Just drop the "dead trees" reference, for accuracy – and for the sake of good journalism.
*"That means the last defenses that kept dead trees relevant to me have been overcome."