I feel that print media should be kept alive for the sheer purpose of time. So that in another fifty years we can look back and reflect on some of the things that have occurred over time. Some people say it would be nice to have everything digitalized because you would have easier access to important facts and dates. But sometimes having easy access to everything isn’t the best method in attaining information. Certain websites like wikipedia and google translate allow their users to update the information on the site, if they feel it’s necessary. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the information that you receive is accurate or even beneficial you.
In 2005 John Seigenthaler, a former editor of the Nashville Tennessean Newspaper, discovered that his own biographical article on wikipedia was altered by one of its users. The biography falsely claimed that Seigenthaler played a part in the Kennedy assassinations. Eventually investigators caught the person who posted Seigenthaler’s false biography and corrected it. He claimed it was a joke. Ever since then Seigenthaler and other figures in the media continue to criticize Wikipedia’s open editing policy, calling the website a provider of inaccurate information.
There has been countless times where I have used google translate for my Spanish class to provide a full translation of what I had written down in English. When I got my assignments back from the teacher, there all these comments from her wondering where my information came from. Sadly, the grade on my report decreased because of improper use of the site, and as a result of that I stopped using those sites as a reference indefinitely because I wasn’t benefiting from it at all. It has inspired me to research more, and go deeper into the subject by reading the books that are required for that topic.
That’s why I believe print media should remain as one of the main sources of information because written word cannot be changed. It is ephemeral, a permanent moment in history where the ideas and views of that time cannot be altered. The electronic media is definitely a more efficient and environmentally healthy method to receive news. We also find that the internet can make life a lot easier when it comes to finding facts. But unlike print media, electronic media constantly changes making the information found vulnerable to deletion. Fifty years from now, I want to be able to show my grand kids the newspaper clippings from the 2008 presidential elections or the biography of Nelson Mandela.
What is your prediction about print media? Should it be left alone? Or has electronic media become too prominently known for print media to make a come back?
In 2005 John Seigenthaler, a former editor of the Nashville Tennessean Newspaper, discovered that his own biographical article on wikipedia was altered by one of its users. The biography falsely claimed that Seigenthaler played a part in the Kennedy assassinations. Eventually investigators caught the person who posted Seigenthaler’s false biography and corrected it. He claimed it was a joke. Ever since then Seigenthaler and other figures in the media continue to criticize Wikipedia’s open editing policy, calling the website a provider of inaccurate information.
There has been countless times where I have used google translate for my Spanish class to provide a full translation of what I had written down in English. When I got my assignments back from the teacher, there all these comments from her wondering where my information came from. Sadly, the grade on my report decreased because of improper use of the site, and as a result of that I stopped using those sites as a reference indefinitely because I wasn’t benefiting from it at all. It has inspired me to research more, and go deeper into the subject by reading the books that are required for that topic.
That’s why I believe print media should remain as one of the main sources of information because written word cannot be changed. It is ephemeral, a permanent moment in history where the ideas and views of that time cannot be altered. The electronic media is definitely a more efficient and environmentally healthy method to receive news. We also find that the internet can make life a lot easier when it comes to finding facts. But unlike print media, electronic media constantly changes making the information found vulnerable to deletion. Fifty years from now, I want to be able to show my grand kids the newspaper clippings from the 2008 presidential elections or the biography of Nelson Mandela.
What is your prediction about print media? Should it be left alone? Or has electronic media become too prominently known for print media to make a come back?
No comments:
Post a Comment