[i习作temp] 这样的逻辑是属于新颖还是走题？投票吧！ [复制链接]

TOPIC: ISSUE7 -"The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record ofcontemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentationthan written records."

TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-6-24
Early in the 20th century, a newinvention has extended the meaning of "Seeing is believing" to abroader scope, in which incident happened in the past could be stored for laterreview. This new form of documentation has much more strength than writtenrecord which depicts incidence with personal memory. In addition, video camera’sdigital storage makes preservation easier and immense and it can be sharedamong ordinary people who can afford few hundred dollars to make a record ofwhatever they want.
Accurately and vividly as it may perform,video camera does has certain merits which other kind of instrument can’tcompare with. By providing us with the most direct visual and audio presentation,video camera can be considered as an unprecedented device for people torecapture the past and store the present. Admittedly, video camera can offer usaccurate and convincing record of contemporary life. It empowers people to filmwhat they see and what they want to share with others, irrespective of time andplace, or even party and dictatorship. To certain extent, video camera is a blessing.The availability of video camera to ordinary people makes scrutinizing authority’smisbehaviors and misleading much easier and objective. During the 1989 TianAnMen massacre, thousands of students fought against the tyranny of governmentand sadly been repressed by tanks and guns. Without the help of video camera,the following generations could barely grasp as much information as possible ifthis event were only documented by words. The written words describing howpeople were killed were less direct than video camera displaying tanks drivingabove the young students’ bodies.


Yet a conclusion that video camera isunquestionably superior to written record seems hasty and ill-conceived. Writtenrecords wield the magic of imagination as one of its merits, in another words,readers actively receive the message from written records. When reading novels,human’s imagination soars and goes beyond the boundary of what we can see from videocamera. Of course, videos can present the event colorfully and vividly, but itdoes not have the function of interpretation. In this data deluge world, theleast thing we lack is information, and producing information has become suchan easy job that everyone can create and share with others. But how many peoplecan find diamond among all the waste? What we need may not just convincingrecord but analysis. Written words, luckily, contain the power ofinterpretation. Finding interesting and meaningful record out of abundant dulldata could be much more valuable than just documentation itself. Furthermore,video can not guarantee its records are all inclusive, while hence, videocamera is as inaccurate as written records.

Medium, be it written record or radio, be itfilm or video camera, are in themselves neither superior nor inferior in theform of documentation. Just like flowers, one can never make the universalproof that rose is much better than lily, since both of them add to the beautyof land, and each of them has specific aroma and shape to make them unique. Eachmedium has specific edge too; written documentation is proved to be the bestform to present thoughts and ideas, to interpret meanings and evoke readers toimagine. Video camera, on the other hand, could be an authentic form ofdocumentation to recapture the happened event for future historian to explore.

By comparing the two means of documentation,we seems to place all the fame and blame to technology, while neglecting theobjectivity of messages carried through these forms and the creators who behindthese media. The speaker might give us a false or veneer image that documentcould be more accurate and true if it were documented by video camera. Any new mediumthat seems to add to the accuracy of documentation might actually add to theinaccuracy of the document, which ironically, falls to the manipulation ofinterest-groups or certain showcase project. Images can be retouched bysettings and new technology. Those who wield video camera can decide what toshoot and what to neglect. Different interest-groups might present us opposite videosof what happened during the Tibetan riot in 2008; the Chinese governmentdenounced the subversive in showing the injury of policemen; youtube mayrelease others videos telling us that local policemen suppressed the minoritygroups by guns and weapons. Then, in the eyes of historian, who are telling thetruth?

For better orworse, information, both authentic and forged, would swamp anyone who wants toknow something. Media, both new and old, would convey what they are told to.And we, as the receiver of information, have to be skeptic about what we see.Don’t believe all we hear and all we see might be the newly motto to deal withthe ‘We Media” world.