Let’s just jump right to the point that this statement "The internet is inferior to print media because too much of the information available
online is less reliable” is not only false but utterly ridicules. The reason I find it so ridicules is that it relies on so many assumptions that I
have a hard time figuring out where to start. For this to be even remotely true we would need to assume these statements below are truisms.
1. Too much information is a bad thing.
2. The numbers game actually means something.
3. Accurate information is harder to find than inaccurate information on the internet.
4. Time/effort is not a factor.
5. Reliability is not time sensitive.
6. The need to use critical thinking is not needed for printed media.
7. Reliable institutions somehow become less reliable on the internet.
These seven assumed truisms are a good start to show just how false the statement for this debate actually is. In my opening statement I used the
silly story of the Bat Boy to show a case where printed media can be as ridicules as anything available on the internet, and though it was just one
story in printed media with some further recurrence of the same storyline I also got 531,000 hits using Google. Under first observation one would
think I just instantly provided a win for my opponent since one false statement is a little less than 531,000, but then we would also need four or
five of my “assumed truisms” above to be actually true for that to be the case.
Looking a little deeper than just a numbers game we find a totally different picture. Out of those 531,000 hits 237,000 are about Bat Boy the musical,
and there is also a huge amount of information about the culture this false tabloid story has created. If I was going to write an article about Bat
Boy, and I had just printed media as my source, my article would be based solely on a hand full of fake stories, and not the culture or the musical
that would enhance those fake stories that only the internet can provide. Even though this is a rather silly story it disproves my number one and two
assumed truisms.
In the debate statement it suggests that accurate information gets lost in a sea of inaccurate information thus making the internet inferior, and I
would agree if that were the case. If we look at a random topic of “The Constitution” that has much in printed media and compare this to the
internet we get these results. I get close to ten million hits in Google, but the very first hit at the top of the list is
here. I challenge my opponent to find a printed source(s)
that has more information with richer detail, and from a more reliable author, oh and find it in less than 10 seconds.
As I continue to look at my 10 million hits on this subject to see if I can easily gain accurate information from a source that would be considered
very reliable, or as reliable as anything in printed media, I simply look at where the information is coming from. To know the source or author is
very important to determine the credibility of the information and whether I look at a book to see who wrote it or I look to see who owns the website
they are one and the same. As I scan the list in the first 20 hits I see many .Gov, .cornell.edu, .yale.edu, and .org for states, teachers, students
etc.
As I scan the next 50 links I see more major universities and state constitutions and then finally the farther I get I start to see more political and
other type options on The Constitution that could be unreliable. For one person using print media as their source they would be hard press to even
come close to this amount of reliable information. One person could spend an entire life time across all 50 states researching what I can find in a
day with no less reliability for me in the sources that provide the information. As anyone can see even if nine million of these hits were totally
unreliable it matters little for the ease to gather creditable information is undeniable, and this shows us my number three and four assumed truisms
are false too.
In my opponent’s opening statement he suggests that the ability to update information with quickness, ease and low cost is a bad thing and that it
directly reduces the quality or reliability of the information. He also suggests that “opinions” on the internet are inferior to those in printed
media.
Since I have demonstrated that the source or author is what determines the credibility then the ease at which they update their material is actually a
great advantage over printed media that either never updated or is done in revisions yearly or longer. Also, incorrect information written in a book
might as well be written in stone, but for an electronic source it is just a simple edit when found.
When one talks about “opinions” they are starting down a slippery slope indeed, and I’m sure my opponent feels that a book about Anne
Collier’s opinions is much more reliable than the million of opinions on the same subject on the internet. The difference here is you can either
read the opinion of just one person (who just might be a right wing radical) or you can read the opinions of thousands of people that are extremely
diverse from each other.
This shows that my number five and six assumed truisms are actually false along with the rest of them for the efficiency of the internet to update or
provide new material has great advantages over the slow, expensive and limited media print options, and that critical thinking is always needed no
matter what type of sources you use to gain knowledge, especially when dealing with opinions.
This takes me to my final assumed truism that “Reliable institutions somehow become less reliable on the internet”. Even though this is obviously
not true, I think this simple example will be adequate proof to show how false it is. In education, using the APA format, you can find how to list
“electronic references” from every major school in the country, and since electronic reference meets the standards of very college or university
in the nation then it is good enough to say the reliability is there.
I put forth a challenge to my opponent to find one topic that is actually more reliable in print than on the internet. The standards of the internet
rest in the same intuitions as those in printed media, and the speed to update that information alone makes it more reliable than media print. The
ease and speed at which to retrieve electronic media is a truly superior method than the antiquated physical print form that shows us that not only
does a person need reliable information but also away to efficiently retrieve it.