Newspapers are Outdated

Cost Con asserts that it is cheaper to update yourself on recent events by buying a newspaper than it is by buying an electronic device. Lets break this down in 2 ways. Firstly for a one off update of newsNewspaper - You would need to purchase a newspaper at least once. This could set you back anything from 40p to £1.50 or even higher[1], depending on the paper that suits the information you want to be updated on, and the day of the week. Say we go with a cheap paper, at 50p, to give Con the benefit of the doubt that we don't fancy the expensive papers. The total cost would therefore be 50p, for a one off update of recent news. Internet - I will use the UK as an example, firstly because I stay here, and secondly because Con used UK figures in his examples, so I want to keep things consistent. In the UK, Ever person has been granted the right to access the Internet by the Government, for free. This mean local libraries, colleges and other outlets provide free Internet access to acomodate this. This is in keeping with their recent updates to benefit systems making online job searches mandatory rather than offline ones. This means, for a one off update of recent news online, the cost is 0p. Newspaper 50p, Internet 0p. Now lets take it on a yearly basis, with updates daily or more if possible. Newspaper - AT minimum, you would have to purchase a daily paper. We'll take the 50p cost again, however Saturday and Sunday papers can cost the better part of £2. So over a year your looking at £182.50, this is before the added Saturday and Sunday costs, and any evening paper costs if you want to stay further updated. Internet - Again, you could use the free method by going to libraries etc. But I want to show that you could even have Internet, anytime of anyday, anywhere you want, to update you on news for cheaper than a daily newspaper. First we need a device to access Internet, say a tablet. You can get them cheaper, but for quickness, PC World currently have one for sale for £49. You also need Internet, Giff Gaff do tablet pc Internet goodybags for £5 a month pay as you go which would total £60 over the year. As its mobile broadband and works from a mobile phone signal, you do not need any landline or additional costs. This totals £109 and leaves £73.50 towards the cost of charging up your tablet. Now I can't say for sure the exact amount it will cost to charge this tablet, but according to the Electric Power Research Group it only costs $1.36 a year to charge an Ipad[2]. Convert this to pounds and its 87p. When we take this off from the total, the final amount comes to £109.87. Newspaper £182.50, Internet £109.87. Therefore, Even with buying your own device, it is cheaper over a year to update yourself via Internet. This means Cons claim that newspapers are a cheaper way to update yourself is false. EyesCons second claim it that newspapers do not harm your eyes, compared to tv sets and smartphones which do harm your eyes. Firstly, Cons source is a forum post, not an article or published paper by anyone in a respective field. As for the claim itself. Old TV's used CR tubes, which used beams of electrons tightly focused on the screen to create an image. The electrons hit a phosphorus wire mesh screen. This wiremesh is also used as a faraday cage or shield, which prevents these electrons form going any further. The actual image that you see is light generated from the phosphor. Unless Con is saying that letting your eyes see light is harmful, Cons point here has failed. As for newer TV's and smartphones, they are made with lcd screens etc. Which also do not emit cathode rays and have not been proven in any way to be harmful to the eyes. Con also took his claim on tv sets and applied it to smartphones without and evidence that smartphones emit cathode rays either. The only harm from tv or smartphones close to relevant here, would be strained eyes, which is just as likely from reading small writing in a newspaper. To sum up, Con must prove that old type tv's are infact harmful, that new types of tv's emit this same harmful ray, that smartphones do the same, and that this harms eyes. Until then Con has failed to meet the burden of proof on this claim, and the claim does not stand. ElectricityCon claims that the lack of a need for electricity helps establish that newspapers are not outdated. This is like saying smoke signals do not need electricity, but phones do, smoke signals are not outdated as a way to communicate. Con also states "what if you want to read/listen news through devices but they are not charged and you have no source to charge them then in that case I think that a newspaper will be helpful. " We could just as easily say, what if we wanted a newspaper but the shop is closed, I think a tablet pc and Internet would be helpful. "Shops have specific opening times, whereas electricity and the Internet is 24/7. So if anything, this is a reason to update yourself to Internet from newspapers. Con has not made a point that backs up the resolution in this part. OutdatedBoth the Newspapers and the news in them are outdated by definition. Outdated is defined as 'out of date' and 'obsolete'. [3]Newspapers have to be produced. That is, a story must surface, a writer must then write about it, after that an editor must edit it, it then has to go through layout, design and printing, after which it must be delivered to the shops, and then on to the customers, who then read it. Say this person has both a newspaper, and a tablet. The newspaper may very well tell a recent story, but any updates since the 2nd stage of that process will not be in the next days paper when this person goes to read it at breakfast. However, if at the same time they switch on a tablet pc, every update from that point until now can be at the reader, with updates as he finishes his morning tea. He could even interact with other people talking about it and ask specific question to find out even more information on the story. Therefore, at a news level, newspapers are outdated compared to tablet pc's. For this reason they are also obsolete. As for the newspaper itself, it is an old invention, that in its print form has not evolved or changed in recent times, whereas online news has and is constantly evolving and finding new ways to engage people with news and information, meaning by definition, newspapers are outdated. ConclusionIt costs more for a newspaper. Tablets, PC's and TV does not hurt your eyes anymore than newspapers. Electricity and Internet is an advantage for news over shops with restricted hours. On top of these, newspapers and their articles are outdated by definition. [1] . http://media.guardian.co.uk... [2] . http://phys.org... [3] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...