Some people think that to learn about other countries, they need to travel. Some say that it is not necessary to travel; we can have information through TV and internet. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Nowadays, there is a debate about the best way of learning about different cultures. While some people support getting information by media technology, others believe it is fundamental to go to the place. I personally agree with the

second

statement. At the outset, there are many reasons why travelling is better than knowing the country by screens, but the most conspicuous stems from the fact that to enjoy the food or interact with locals and landscapes, people have to live there and those would help to memorize which was taught.

For example

, films and documentaries are edited, and it is showing only the beauties of the environment.

Furthermore

, travellers are able to see the place by their view

instead

of by film-makers´ eyes.

In addition

, lovers of sports can practice only moving,

such

as ski or surf.

Consequently

, staying in the country can allow them to know all about it.

On the other hand

, watchers have professional research and view of the region with low cost.

Moreover

, it is comfortable and available all year without variability due to weather seasons.

For instance

, Aspen is better in winter than summer, someone could not have a vacation at the perfect time.

Additionally

, those who get information on the Internet or television can not practice sport or see the drawbacks of the environment. Because of that for the best knowledge travel fairly outreach. To conclude, watchers can get the information easily whereas travellers probably remember and interact better. In my opinion, in order to know the culture and the history, we should eat, enjoy and talk with locals.