- 最后登录
- 2012-8-10
- 在线时间
- 359 小时
- 寄托币
- 862
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2010-11-21
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 5
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 819
- UID
- 2960189

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 862
- 注册时间
- 2010-11-21
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 5
|
初次写作 些许凌乱 大哥大姐小弟小妹们多给点意见吧~~~
TOPIC: ISSUE7 - "The video camera provides such an accurate and convincing record of contemporary life that it has become a more important form of documentation than written records."
WORDS: 573
I concede that video camera is an accurate and convincing device for recording, which is more preeminent and cogent than written records. Nonetheless, written records always play an indispensable part as a precise and detailed way of record. For this reason, written records is as important as video camera, if not more so. That's the reason why I don't agree with speaker's assertion, which apparently overlooks the value of written record.
Admittedly, video camera is widely used in our quotidian life and some professional territories, which has proved its powerful ability in recording already. And the strength which we should pay most attention to is the difficulty in forgery. For example, people in ancient time recorded events only by words and single paintings, which make later people feel hard to integrally and comprehensively figure out its real surroundings then. But with help of video camera, everything is recorded perfectly in detail. When it comes to law, video camera of crime scene is the most reliable evidence, while any other sorts of proof are less persuasive. Another advantage is that video is easier to make sense, that's why so many people prefer watching movies to read novels. In realm of communication, watching video is a process of accepting passively, and to the contrary, reading word material is a course of exploring actively.
However, judging a media only by its accuracy and persuasion is unfair. After all, one strength of written record is popularity, because video is far more expensive than any written records to many people. Moreover, when it comes to archives of legal documents, history and statistics, written media is the exclusive way to record effectively. In this situation, video records is not adept at expressing the essence as written media. Additionally, video always describe something ostensively, but if you want it to be insightful, written records is obviously a better choice. That's why Shakespeare's work is still valuable and even highly-praised after hundres of years. The immortality of literature works turns out that written records are of more aesthetic values than video insofar as it is used in description abstractly.
General speaking, video camera and written records, of which neither can be replaced by the other, are both indispensable medium for recording,and they should be used aptly in the approriate situations. As for video camera, it has an intrinscally advantage that it manipulates the senses of both eyes and ears, which brings audience more strong impact of perception. That explains why television is somewhat much more popular than newspaper among the public today. But if we jump to conclusion that written records are less important, or even useless, it is entirely irrational. We have to present our meeting documents, thesis, patents, contracts and so forth with the form of written records. Furthermore, written records are mobile to a great extent, you can easily carry some paper with you.But if you want to watch a video, you need to get a high definition electronic video player or a computer with a screen of suitable size, which is likely too expensive to afford for some people.
In conclusion, both media categories has its strength and weakness. Although, a single picture contains more information than a single sentences, and a single video clip carries more information than a single topic, usually the simple one is close to the key point. I advocate that written records will surely remains stable despite the shock of modern technology. |
|