The author is correct insofar as the ability to read opens up the path to more data, but is wrong in the assumption that it makes the processing of that data any more logical. The automatic assumption that readers are able to think, reason and discern manure from shinola is simply not the case. The written word provides more opportunity for obsfucation and meaningless filler than visual.
Which is more factual; a menu item describing chopped sirloin, with the chef’s special blending of creams, presented on a fluffy sesame roll, or an actual photo of a big mac?
Well, given that the only resemblence between what I actually get in the box, versus what the picture looks like, is that I have two chunks of meat, three pieces of bread, and some "special sauce", I'd say neither was correct...