© (Los Angeles Times)"Printed sources are inherently more reliable than digital ones," one letter writer says. (Los Angeles Times)
To the editor: I am a typical baby boomer who loves to read that same way I did as a child - by cracking open an actual book. But it's not only nostalgia that drives me. ("When reading to learn, what works best for students - printed books or digital texts?" Opinion, May 10)
My profession requires finding much more in-depth details than Google can provide. For instance, my company was hired to research and replicate musical instruments for the mega hit movie "Bohemian Rhapsody," and not just for the vintage gear that the band Queen used, but also the actual custom instruments used on specific songs and in specific concerts.
The only way we could do that type of extensive research was the old-fashioned way - by poring over every book we could find on Queen, their performance and recording sessions, and the history of their many unique instruments. This was a most enjoyable experience.
Long live books!
Del Breckenfeld, Desert Hot Springs
..
To the editor: There are many more advantages that the print medium has over digital content. Chief among these, at this time, are the markers of authenticity.
Print materials are much more difficult to forge and manipulate. The traceable provenance provides methods of determining the author and the publisher. The expense of printing and print distribution renders the publication of disinformation much more problematic.
Printed sources are inherently more reliable than digital ones.
Dan Haley, Culver City
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.