Books and newspapers vs. E-books and e-newspapers.
I like both. Both have their purpose. Ease of use and the circumstances of your reading situation make a difference in a reader’s decision of which to use. There are many pros and many cons of each format and if I listed them here, you would be bored, but these pros and cons might also spark a discussion and an e-position white paper from a director, filmmaker, copy editor, writer, blogger, content provider, forum member or moderator. Isn’t everyone one of these titles since they acquired a Smartphone or an iPad. But that is a subject for another time.
One theory that I have not seen discussed is this theorem: “There is a greater chance of learning about something if it is printed on paper than if it is disseminated electronically. There is a better chance of learning when having more knowledge available ”
The reason is simple. If all the news is provided to you each day via an electronic format, that information is filed and hidden from view until it is displayed on a screen. If the same news is printed on paper, it is visible 24/7 and not filed away, albeit everyone may have an electronic device to see the file. In another comparison, the file might be there, but what are your chances of seeing it if your hard drive has 3 terabytes.
After a person reads his electronic device, the file is put to sleep in the mysterious world of La La file world. Yet if the media was on simple recyclable newsprint, it might lie around in a home for a few days, reside in a library institution, rest comfortably in a barbershop, or sit in the stack of newspapers your mother would keep that would be taken to the junkman.
Maybe this theory is a false analogy?
So in my humble opinion, I think news should be offered two ways at least. In this way the chance that history and the stories will be preserved, like they are on rocks, hieroglyphics
Pyramids caves, Dead Sea scrolls and other works. What do you think? I would like your opinion.