The author asserts that video cameras are highly convincing and accurate that it provides ample evidence. It also ascertains that it is more important than literary evidence. I do in fact agree with the fact that cameras provide a exact image of the contemporary life. However, it is not often that it is true.
It is true that cameras in fact produce a accurate and convincing replica of the contemporary life that it has a wide variety of applications in the contemporary life itself. In today's world, owing to the ill facets of human traits such as, skepticism, caution, etc it is difficult to convince someone just on the basis of a written documentation as the written documentation always falls under the question of who has written it and whether he is able enough to publish such a document. Often in disagreement which is quite natural in any human discussion, ( and which is quite good since it can lead to overall good of the community except for the person must be willing to grow and the discussion must be apt as unrelated discussions can lead to unhealthy discussions) the end result is often in question of providing sufficient evidence to support the either of the discussing party. In such a case, it is necessary that proper documentation in the form of video is presented, as man, by nature always seems to believe more on what he saw rather than what he heard or what he has read.
Also, explanation of things become easier if it is put in video form rather than writing lengthy passages about it. For example, in documenting the agility of a tiger in attacking the prey, say by 'animal planet', it is better and quite easier to put the whole thing in a video, as in fact it is difficult to express such delicate movements of the wild cat.
In this era, where science and technology is leaping bounds, and the amount of things science can do is undefined. We have seen cases where science has created replicas of something that hasn't even existed. In such a scenario...