****Some people say that you can learn more about another country by watching TV programmers and films about it than by actually visiting.
How true is this statement? Is there anything you can learn about another country by visiting it that you cannot learn by watching programmers about it?*******
These days, some citizens argue that watching TV shows and movies about other countries is the convenience way to study about the condition of the countries. However, I believe that there is anything that the notion does not have and learners should go directly to the places such as experience the cultures and meet the locals directly.
Regarding to watching TV programs and films, some inhabitants state that it is the best method to learn about a foreign country. Proponents of this view argue that it is more efficient. Since societies have been busy in their jobs or schools, they cannot go far from daily activities. By this method, they do not need to visit the places. For instance, the busy learners who would learn about Indonesian cultures. By watching some TV shows such as "Jejak Petualang" in Trans 7 channel which represents about Indonesian live, they know everything about the country. Hence, following the method, people are convenient in learning other cultures.
However, learning the situation of another country by going directly has some superiority that I believe the above statement does not have. First of all, learner who visits another nation can experience directly the cultures and interacts the locals' hospitality. The observer also can prove directly what the situation looks and feels like such as its beautiful landscape. Hence, it is evident that by visiting directly, the learner gets more evidences concerning what he studies about.
To sum up, there is no doubt that although watching TV shows and films about another country makes the learner more effective to understand the situation of the place, I believe that visiting directly to the location has enormous merits. Hence, understanding another cultures, observer should visit the place directly to get real observation.
How true is this statement? Is there anything you can learn about another country by visiting it that you cannot learn by watching programmers about it?*******
These days, some citizens argue that watching TV shows and movies about other countries is the convenience way to study about the condition of the countries. However, I believe that there is anything that the notion does not have and learners should go directly to the places such as experience the cultures and meet the locals directly.
Regarding to watching TV programs and films, some inhabitants state that it is the best method to learn about a foreign country. Proponents of this view argue that it is more efficient. Since societies have been busy in their jobs or schools, they cannot go far from daily activities. By this method, they do not need to visit the places. For instance, the busy learners who would learn about Indonesian cultures. By watching some TV shows such as "Jejak Petualang" in Trans 7 channel which represents about Indonesian live, they know everything about the country. Hence, following the method, people are convenient in learning other cultures.
However, learning the situation of another country by going directly has some superiority that I believe the above statement does not have. First of all, learner who visits another nation can experience directly the cultures and interacts the locals' hospitality. The observer also can prove directly what the situation looks and feels like such as its beautiful landscape. Hence, it is evident that by visiting directly, the learner gets more evidences concerning what he studies about.
To sum up, there is no doubt that although watching TV shows and films about another country makes the learner more effective to understand the situation of the place, I believe that visiting directly to the location has enormous merits. Hence, understanding another cultures, observer should visit the place directly to get real observation.
