It is universally accepted that in light of the proliferation of online information channels, conventional newspapers’ positions have always been a heated debate. Although online news is indeed superior to printed news in numerous facets, I believe that printed papers cannot be replaced completely.
Granted, one might argue that printed newspapers are redundant for two primary reasons. First, because of the convenience of digital versions, residents can easily access the latest news regardless of their locations. In fact, by reading the digital publication, a worker is enabled to update local newest affairs, even when he or she is at work or home, without having to get to a newsstand. Second, while printed versions require money to purchase, online newspapers allow people to read without being charged, which is conducive to money-saving. This means that the locals can still deepen their insights in both national and international news with no fees, which benefits residents’ economies.
Nevertheless, despite the convenience of modern newspaper channels, there is a myriad of reasons why conventional news should not be replaced. While the Internet and digital devices invade human life recently, a number of people still find it hard to utilize or cannot afford the expense of storing those. A good example is the elderly, with short-eyesight and slow pace to learn, they would prefer the conventional papers. Furthermore, stopping producing printed newspapers comes at the expense of the increase in the unemployment rate. For instance, if everyone, even the senior citizens, is susceptible to reading news on Internet, several agencies that establish newspapers, as well as their workers, will be conducive to being jobless, which acts as a deterrent for the nation's economy.
In conclusion, although digital newspapers are beneficial to the quality of human life, printed papers cannot be replaced since they still have substantial impacts on certain people’s lives and careers.
It is
universally
accepted
that in light of the proliferation of online information channels, conventional
newspapers’
positions have always been a heated debate. Although online
news
is
indeed
superior to
printed
news
in numerous facets, I believe that
printed
papers cannot
be replaced
completely.
Granted, one might argue that
printed
newspapers
are redundant for two primary reasons.
First
,
because
of the convenience of digital versions, residents can
easily
access the latest
news
regardless of their locations. In fact, by reading the digital publication, a worker
is enabled
to update local newest affairs, even when he or she is at work or home, without having to
get
to a newsstand. Second, while
printed
versions require money to
purchase
, online
newspapers
allow
people
to read without
being charged
, which is conducive to money-saving. This means that the locals can
still
deepen their insights in both national and international
news
with no fees, which benefits residents’ economies.
Nevertheless
, despite the convenience of modern
newspaper
channels, there is a myriad of reasons why conventional
news
should not
be replaced
. While the Internet and digital devices invade human life recently, a number of
people
still
find it
hard
to utilize or cannot afford the expense of storing those. A
good
example is the elderly, with short-eyesight and slow pace to learn, they would prefer the conventional papers.
Furthermore
, stopping producing
printed
newspapers
comes
at the expense of the increase in the unemployment rate.
For instance
, if everyone, even the senior citizens, is susceptible to reading
news
on Internet, several agencies that establish
newspapers
,
as well
as their workers, will be conducive to being jobless, which acts as a deterrent for the nation's economy.
In conclusion
, although digital
newspapers
are beneficial to the quality of human life,
printed
papers cannot
be replaced
since they
still
have substantial impacts on certain
people
’s
lives
and careers.