At 13:26 04/03/96 +0000, Richard Kirby wrote:
>Anyway, we still get dross and poor quality information in print - most
>newspapers, for example, tell things the way they want, not how it really is.
>The only difference is that it costs more to publish on paper, than publishing
>on the Web - is that really a bad thing?
>
>Ciolek seems to be preposing to make the Web an electronic version of the
>print media, with all its elitist controls!
The same applies to other media such as television and radio, to which the
Web may be more comparable than print publishing. Much of the output of ALL
forms of media is low calibre, but some of it is good. The Web is no
different in this respect -- you pays your money and takes your choice.
Let's face it, even a lot of so-called "quality" material in print consists
of books which never needed to be written and rehashed articles which nobody
reads, in spite of peer-review and other so-called quality controls.
Damien Keown
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|