Reference works have always been controversial. Try this – it’s by ‘S.S. van Dine‘ (Willard Huntingdon Wright), from Misinforming a Nation (1917)

The [advertising] statements insisted that the Britannica was
a supreme, unbiased, and international reference
library an impartial and objective review of the
world; and it was on these statements, repeated
constantly, that Americans bought the work. The
truth is that the Encyclopedia Britannica, in its
main departments of culture, is characterized by
misstatements, inexcusable omissions, rabid and
patriotic prejudices, personal animosities, blatant
errors of fact, scholastic ignorance, gross neglect
of non-British culture, an astounding egotism, and
an undisguised contempt for American progress.

Yes, I found the reference in Wikipedia. And yes! the online entry for S.S. van Dine in Brittanica does not mention Misinforming a Nation.

She says, forget about what kids are getting from the screen; what are they missing on the page? In business terms, what are the opportunity costs of kids not reading books?

Which in turn makes me wonder (a) what do kids 11-19 actually read nowadays? (b) what did they read in the 1960s (or whichever period one selects) and (c) is anyone framing up the question in something like that way? It would be easy to kill any such project by pointing out that what’s read makes sense only if you consider how it’s read. But perhaps there’s a way around that.