arguments against books, magazines and for digital media?

[ichigo rafu]

i am writing a essay on why digital media is better than traditional media. the points have to be valid and proven by fact. if there are some good articles you could name that would also be great. the points i already have are enviromentally friendly which is not very strong because there isnt enough evidence, businesses reach a wider varitey of people again not very strong because not many people have articles on this, and that it helps engage more people in politics and society also has like no evidence. so please help thank you!

[ANDRE L]

Sorry, but you're on the wrong side of that debate.

This past week's events in Boston, and the pitiful news coverage by 24 hour news channels and by online sites, such as Twitter, only highlighted the fact that high speed media is, at best, superficial, trivial, and usually wrong.

A good rule of life is that when there are fast breaking events, at least half of all reports about them will be 100% wrong. I watched the news on 9/11, and the idiocy of much of it was astounding. News 'anchors' looking at the pictures of the first WTC tower's damage, still unclear on what kind of plane had hit the tower, if it was just a small private plane. I had been in those towers, I knew their size and just looking at the size of the horizontal hole told me clearly that it was a jetliner that had hit.

One of the biggest problems with fast breaking media is that there is rarely a decent, never mind good, editor, and there is little/no fact checking done before rolling the 'story' out.

Oh, and if online media helps people 'engage' more with politics, then please explain why the percentage of people who vote in elections has been dropping in the last decade...