Issue38 电视取代书本的学习【求拍，有拍必回】

爱上千年的猫UID: 2476232

Issue38: 666 words  45 minutes
In the age of television, reading books is not as important as it once was. People can learn as much by watching television as they can by reading books.

Have you ever been to a friend's house where there is no book but only a television (or TV) laying in the living room or bedroom? No one would answer "Yes". Admittedly, since the invention of TV, people spend less time reading book and watching TV becomes the most popular recreation for us. However, books still have unsubstitutable advantages, especially in learning, than TV will never replace books entirely.

Television absolutely brings us into a new era. With the colorful and lively scenarios on a small cubicle "box", we can "get" to every corner of the world. The latest new in Iraq, the fashion show held in Paris, the most beautiful beach in Hawaii, can be attained through TV. It widens our horizon and enriches our knowledge while provides us with various perspectives to understand the world. Some TV stations even produce education programs to assist children learning. Lectures of famous professors from all over the world can be also reached through satellite to TV. Thanks to TV, the world is becoming smaller and smaller and we are more informed than ever before, as long as we spend time sitting infront of a TV.

Despite those apparent advantages of television, TV still has drawbacks. For instance, TV can not be carried with you to wherever you go, even to your own washing room. It relies on the supply of electricity and TV signals. Whenever there is some malfunction in electricity system or TV signal system, TV is nothing but a useless iron box. Moreover, what we can see is produced by TV stations, which mean the content and time is not decided by ourselves. If you would to watch a lecture of Harvard University Professor, but the TV stations do not produce it or play it in the time when you are not available, you still can not get what you want. These limitations determine that television can not replace books entirely, at least at present.

The limitations of TV do not occur in books. Books are convenient to carry. Even in the 5 minute that you are in your washing room, you can pick up several pages. Also, we can observe many people read books when they are on a subway, a plane and so on. Besides, the reading content and time is as your wish. No one will hinder your interest, whether it is the biography of Clinton or the Brief Introduction of Time. And if you want to quote a specific verse of Shakespeare, all what you have to do is to open the index of that book and refer to that page. You don't have to worry about missing the playing time like watching a desired program. In short, in the world of books, you are the master of yourself.

Furthermore, books provide specialized information and knowledge that television will seldom contain. As we know, TV programs usually focus on common population that it will not contain anything too difficult or too specialized. Nevertheless, those are what we need in academic fields. A student in physics may know the existence of gravity from TV. But without physics books, he may never know why gravity exists and how to calculate the influence of gravity, on earth or on other planets. This could no doubt impede the development of science and limit our ability of exploring unknown fields. Books, instead, are media to carry the illusive theories, whenever they are established. This knowledge is one of the most precious legacies of human history. They can easily recorded in books but hardly in a TV program which wishes to gain more audience.

In sum, although television has many endearing advantages, such as broadening our view and enriching our understanding of the world, the innate limitations of it decide television can not replace books entirely, at least in the current conditions.  Books, with convenience in carrying and depth in specialized knowledge, are indispensible media in our society. They help us understand and explore the world in depth.

gerbilUID: 2661156

structure is good, but analysis not enough