[stcredzero]

A new medium never really replaces an old medium, it just starves all other media for time.

Really? So, TV and movies starved audio commentary and discussion for time? I suspect TV and movies became dominant, but they didn't completely eliminate audio. Games are a new medium, and they seem to coexist with other media. Books don't seem to be going away. If anything, new forms of media seem to be synergistic with the existing forms.

[tfinniga]

Maybe starved is too strong a term. I think we're both trying to make the same point - a new medium can exist, but it doesn't mean that the old media go away. You might just use them less. The idea of a new medium replacing an older medium 1-for-1 doesn't make much sense.

That said, the amount of attention people can pay to all media is essentially finite, and new media decreases the hold of old media. In a very real way the internet is killing print newspapers, by drastically reducing the amount of attention that is paid to them.

Likewise, if you look at printed books, they are much less important than they were 100 years ago, largely due to radio, television, movies, computers, and the internet.

[BuckRogers]

Books might be less used by the majority, but they're still the most important medium. They're usually the highest quality, most vetted source of information and reading exercises your mind. As well, most content online today will be gone in 100 years, while we have books from 2,000 years ago. It sounds weird to the modern, arrogant man who mocks something so old fashioned, but the printed word dwarfs all these other inventions. Nothing is replacing it.

[croon]

> They're usually the highest quality, most vetted source of information and reading exercises your mind.

That's kind of an arrogant categorization.

1) We all read, regardless of the material the text is presented on.

2) I've bought and borrowed an immense amount of really awful books, and I've read a ton of truly insightful, well worded and interesting stories, posts, discussions online.

Sure internet is ful of crap, but I believe it's equally full of great ideas that wouldn't get a chance to be published on paper, whether that is because the author doesn't feel he/she can fill a book, they are not appropriately confident about their work or any number of other factors.

Online, you can crowdsource the editing process and everything (most) good will be visibly published. If that is not succeeding a medium I don't know what is. Honestly I'm not even comfortable calling them different medias. I believe text is the medium, the same way 2d video is a medium, from 35/70/135mm celluloid through VHS/betamax through all imaginable codecs online. There's really no difference in how you process the information.

[BuckRogers]

Most content online doesn't require quite the attention span and focus of reading a book. There's just no equivalency between Facebook and The Republic. Books usually have better vetted sources and an editor going over it. I've never seen anything that originated online like The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Except maybe The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

And I doubt that the next "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" will originate online either. It might be advertised online, eventually people will pirate it in epub form but no one is putting a great work online first. Because what I'm saying is true.

"I've read a ton of truly insightful, well worded and interesting stories, posts, discussions online"

As have I. It's not worthless, I love the internet. It's just not replacing books. When all the drives fail that store this conversation, there will be a million copies of The Iliad still in existence. I stand by my original statement, books dwarf all these other mediums.

[goldenkey]

There's an incredibly huge difference between text and video and how the information is processed. Your statement literally rejects the validity and significance of the director of photography's job

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematographer

[jeeva]

If I'm not mistaken, they meant that text == text, just as video == video - not that text and video are directly comparable.

There's no difference between a printed and bound book full of (for the sake of argument) Tumblr posts and the same posts online - or alternatively, a betamax video, and the same video captured and encoded in an MKV container.

[ralfd]

The parent comment meant that there is not a big difference to them on which medium (paper book, iPad, desktop monitor) they read a text, "text" is its own category instead of paper vs electronic. Similar "video" is its own category. Watching a Football game on a gigantic 60 inch screen vs on your small phone the big screen may be more comfortable, but it doesn't fundamentally change how you process the information (compared to reading what happened on Wikipedia or hearing radio play-by-play commentary.)

[croon]

The other replies have already clarified it better than I did, but from the horses mouth: Yes, of course video is different from text. I meant as the other comments suggest that text is no different from text, and video is no different from video. I called both of them their own (separate) medias.

Sorry for the ambiguous phrasing.