In recent years, reading online newspapers tends to be more popular, and some people argue that social networks are gradually making us access information in the wrong way. I completely agree with this point of view because we access information not only through mainstream newspapers but also through electronic newspapers, so it leads to you accessing junk information on electronic newspapers.
There are two main reasons it could be argued that people move from reading mainstream newspapers to reading online newspapers. First, the official news sources have a long history, if you want to publish an article, you have to go through a rigorous censorship process by the newsroom, for example, they see if the information is authentic or not. To add further credence to my assertion, online newspapers tend to publish news that shock or confuse people, just because of the meager royalties they have lost their professional ethics. Take, for example, many individuals have taken advantage of the people's trust and the outbreak of the disease to release false data about the number of cases, using the pretext of making money to make a living that they wrote down articles that cause panic in the community. One the other hand, social networks gradually replace useful information with more negative news and it seems that the online community is also responding. When we have access to too much negative information, those seemingly innocuous things are affecting their brains, emotions, social relationships. They gradually become more toxic and have extreme actions such as supporting a protest, slandering each other on social networks. To give one example, Western countries still use newspapers, it's like a way to train logical thinking and help them access good and authentic information.
In conclusion, I fully support the view that social media can change the way you access information but choose healthy, authentic information to keep your mind fresh.
In recent years, reading
online
newspapers
tends to be more popular, and
some
people
argue that
social
networks are
gradually
making us
access
information
in the
wrong
way. I completely
agree
with this point of view
because
we
access
information
not
only
through mainstream
newspapers
but
also
through electronic
newspapers
,
so
it leads to you accessing junk
information
on electronic newspapers.
There are two main reasons it could
be argued
that
people
move
from reading mainstream
newspapers
to reading
online
newspapers
.
First
, the official news sources have a long history, if you want to publish an article, you
have to
go through a rigorous censorship process by the newsroom,
for example
, they
see
if the
information
is authentic or not. To
add
further
credence to my assertion,
online
newspapers
tend to publish news that shock or confuse
people
,
just
because
of the meager royalties they have lost their professional ethics. Take,
for example
,
many
individuals have taken advantage of the
people
's trust and the outbreak of the disease to release false data about the number of cases, using the pretext of making money to
make
a living that they wrote down articles that cause panic in the community.
One
the other hand,
social
networks
gradually
replace useful
information
with more
negative
news and it seems that the
online
community is
also
responding. When we have
access
to too much
negative
information
, those
seemingly
innocuous things are affecting their brains, emotions,
social
relationships. They
gradually
become more toxic and have extreme actions such as supporting a protest, slandering each other on
social
networks. To give one example, Western countries
still
use
newspapers
, it's like a way to train logical thinking and
help
them
access
good
and authentic information.
In conclusion
, I
fully
support the view that
social
media can
change
the way you
access
information
but
choose healthy, authentic
information
to
keep
your mind fresh.