3 ms·
It's a bit silly to think that, for example, novels are inherently better than television (and in fact in the 19th century people complained about people wastin
by jhbadger 3y ago
It's a bit silly to think that, for example, novels are inherently better than television (and in fact in the 19th century people complained about people wasting their time reading novels much as modern people complain about television and social media as time wasters), but in terms of nonfiction, books simply provide more depth than any other source, except perhaps academic papers.
- corethree 3y agoBut that depth can be wrong. And it can be lies. It can be deception. And who's to say visual media can't provide that depth? One can provide audio narration along with visual narration which in totality is greater information then just text alone. You example of 19th century people saying books are time wasters and people now saying they are not illustrates changing bias in the people. Who's to say the people in the 19th century are wrong? Who's to say our opinion now is right? It's simply cultural opinion with no logical basis.