Many people are of the opinion that paper-based news has been replaced and is no longer needed. While I think this belief is driven by the swift technological developments, particularly due to the rise of the Internet, I strongly disagree for several reasons.
Advocates of traditional reading contend that despite the prevalence of online platforms, newspapers still offer some unique advantages. Chief among these is the fact that newspapers are still considered one of the most reliable and credible information resources. Hence, having a habit of reading such materials can largely reduce the risk of absorbing false information, which, in the long run, can have several detrimental effects. Another noteworthy reason is the experience of physically holding a book, which cannot be found in digital documents. In fact, a great number of extensive readers who opt for physical reading explain that the feeling of paper’s texture and the smell of newsprint really help them immerse in the information.
Granted, one might argue that traditional newspapers are obsolete. This is predicated on [LMT1] the assumption that anyone with a mobile phone or a laptop with access to the internet can easily stay updated on what is happening in the world. However, this line of reasoning is not sound because it fails to factor in the unaffordability of the technological gadgets involved. Since a large number of people are still living under the poverty line, it is insensible to expect them to spend several hundred dollars on such devices and pay another amount every month to get access to online news. These people clearly have to rely on newspapers to find information about what is going on in their own communities and across the globe.
In conclusion, while it is true that technological advancements have offered a wide range of convenient, easy, and time-saving reading methods, Printed newspapers is still somewhat cannot be replaced.