I hear the claim often that the key theories of Comm Studies can’t address the key dilemmas of todays digital media environment. McLuhan’s ideas are some of those that have been considered visionary — but are they truly applicable?
Well, comm students at Fordham are on a mission to test some classic ideas by some key theorists within the critical theory / cultural studies traditions and their suitability in analysing current media phenomena. Below we will find some ideas about McLuhan and digital living.
Digital Living: FIN_IND_USA 
Nov 22, 2010 @ 21:47:46
McLuhan is very influential to the world of communication. His ideas were revolutionary in his time (1960s) and are even more impactful in our world today. In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McLuhan introduced the world to the “medium is the message”. In doing so, McLuhan opened the doors to not only understanding our relationship to technology but his idea also delves us into a deeper understanding of human nature. McLuhan’s idea is almost certainty universally true and hard to argue against. McLuhan was truly ahead of his time and was a visionary whose ideas perfectly describe a world that he never came to see. The “medium is the message” only appears get truer with time.
McLuhan’s “medium is the message” is to communications what “E=MC2” is to physics; a brilliantly precise idea that gets stronger with time. The “medium is the message” means that the medium (TV, book, radio, etc.) shapes the meaning and is also inseparable from the meaning (that is not to say that one exists before the other or that one is more important than the other). The medium is intricately tied to the meaning. This idea is not only an observation about how technologies influence information, but also how there is meaning in everything humans create. In fact, “medium is the message” is best understood when applied to mediums that have not context.
First take the same context over two different mediums to show how the medium affects the meaning. Here is a snippet of a Friends transcript:
http://img809.imageshack.us/f/screenshot1711201017091.jpg/
Here is the video scene that corresponds to the transcript:
These two mediums present the same content but the content affects the receiver differently. For instance, reading the transcript did not make me laugh once and I did not understand what the conversation was about. However, when I watched the clip, I laughed and understood what the characters were referring to. I once saw a movie, Baby Mama, in the movie theatre thinking it was extremely funny. When I saw the same movie again on the television at my house, I couldn’t find what I found so funny. This example helps to explain how the medium is the message. A change in medium meant a difference in reaction from me.
This difference in understanding is what McLuhan focused on. He fixated on the way television affects the message in relation to another medium (radio, newspaper, etc.). This is particularly important when analyzing political debates. McLuhan argued that television is not a medium for debating. A televised debate is not organized the way a normal debate is organized, argued McLuhan. McLuhan uses the example of Nixon v Kennedy debate in 1960. McLuhan believed that Nixon was clearly superior when heard on the radio, but believed Kennedy is superior when watched on television (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgv72SRHdUI).
The “medium is the message” is hard to understand when applied to things with content, like a television show. It’s hard to not think that the content is equally important. However, McLuhan argued that the “medium is the message” works on things without content. McLuhan used the example of a light bulb. The light bulb does not have any obvious content, however the light bulb brings light to places that would otherwise be dark, and this has had a universal impact.
“Weather the light is used for brain surgery or night baseball is a matter of indifference .It could be argued that these activities are in some way the “content” of the electric light, since they could not exist with out the electric light. This fact merely underlines the fact that “the medium is the message” –McLuhan, Understanding Media
The light bulb shows to need for humans to illuminate things. A box, another medium without content, shows how the medium is the message. A box is used for shipping, organization, etc. Embedded in this medium is the message; a box shows the need for humans to put things in a fixed space.
McLuhan’s famous phrase the “medium is the message” is indubitably true in many instances. McLuhan is unique because he managed to present an idea that transcends everyday communication. In fact the only argument I found argues that medium is more important than the message or vice versa. Communication theorist and I find that the only flaw in McLuhan’s idea is his lack of explanations and support for his arguments. The critiques are not directed towards his idea but rather how he presents it. I think that an idea that has existed for over forty years with little to no direct criticism is probably accepted as true.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 16:07:36
Hey Chabelly
I agree with your analysis of McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message”
Its really cool when we think about it like that and how differently we can receive the same message because of the different mediums. I liked your example of the transcript from the show Friends vs. the actual clip. It really did show how something is much different when we see it though our own eyes as opposed to reading it. Its a good example of how our perception of the same content can be so different depending on how we receive it.
Nov 29, 2010 @ 20:33:53
I completely agree! I never really thought about how the medium changes the message. The example you gave with the Friends transcript and video is perfect example. SO many times we receive emails or text messages that come across as rude or offensive, but if that same person had told us the same message in person or through webcam, we might not have been as nearly offended. It is important to think about and be conscious about as we do continually use technology to communicate, we must think how the receiver will perceive our message.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 04:57:49
Chabelly,
Great analysis! What I found most intriguing about your paper was your comparison between the script and the actual video. When questioned with paper vs acting, one would obviously pick the paper to be more boring, but I never thought of such an example. Before taking this class I never thought about how the medium is the message, I figured the message is most important, but now I realize that one can not have a message without a medium! Communication tools are key to the messages we send each other in day to day life.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 00:53:16
After reading this I looked further into McLuhan’s works and views and they are extremely interesting and, as you said, revolutionary. The whole medium is the message concept is particularly unique. I really liked your Friends example, too. What came to my mind was the difference between listening to a baseball game on the radio or actually watching it. Obviously when listening to a sporting event you are limited by the skill of the play-by-play announcer in your experience. However, at Yankees’ games I always see people who are listening to the game WHILE there. Some people must like as many mediums as they can get!
Dec 01, 2010 @ 06:50:58
Chabelly good job interpreting McLuhan’s ideas. You are so right, he was completely ahead of his time!
What I found very interesting was your comparison between the two mediums. I actually had the same problem. For a class I was given an assignment in which I had to read a play. While reading the dialogue I found it quite boring, the language was dull and the plot was difficult to comprehend. However, the second part of the assignment was to watch the film version. This completely gave me a whole new outlook on things. I was able to understand exactly what was going on because I could observe the face expressions and body language of the characters. While watching them interact with each other it was easier to see the chemistry between the man and woman, something that was missing while I read the play.
These examples prove that the “medium is the message”
Dec 02, 2010 @ 19:58:51
Chabelly: I join the crowd of commentators in thanking you for a great example for that famous slogan. So fundamental, so effective. Thank you also for bringing up the alternative viewpoints (sources for those who critique McL?) Let me continue that line of thinking and be the devil’s advocate by asking whether we can actually make the kind of comparison between the two texts that you made, in terms of empirical media analysis (beyond an illustration of a theory). What I mean is: the actual script was never meant to be the message in a textual form, to be consumed/viewed by audiences as the sitcom scene was. And while we can surely say that yes indeed, the TV clip is different from the script, one could perhaps argue that the message of the sitcom is inherently different since it adds the specific cast, the set, the props, the studio audience, coupled with the expectations of TV audiences of the genre, and so on… This is not exactly comparable to the light bulb metaphor. Rather, it might be that the medium and the content form the message in co-operation. What do you think?
Nov 23, 2010 @ 06:02:26
While researching for my presentation a few weeks back, I found Marshall McLuhan’s Media Ecology theory to be very interesting and relevant to experiences I have had with communicative technology. McLuhan emphasizes that “the medium is the message,” the medium being “a specific type of media; for example, a book, newspaper, radio, television, film, Web Site, or email” (Griffin 313). What he means by this is that it does not matter what the CONTENT of the message is that is being carried. Rather, it is the manner, or MEDIUM, by which the message is carried that is most important, no not more important, it IS the message. At first, this whole concept was a little difficult for me to grasp, so I provided this link to help you understand where he is coming from a little better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtycdRBAbXk). As we all know, communicative technology has been rapidly advancing over the years. McLuhan chooses to respond to this advancement by theorizing that new technologies play a large role in different personal and social environments (Griffin 313).
McLuhan divides human history into four “ages” with a possible fifth age that we have not yet approached. The “Tribal Age” is the first stage and came before the invention of the alphabet. The primitive people relied on the senses of hearing, touch, taste and smell as opposed to the sense of visualizing. Because the ear created a more “holistic sense of the world,” our ancestors developed a “deeper sense of community and awareness of the surrounding existence” (Griffin 316). Next, came “The Age of Literacy” in which sounds were put into writing. Once the alphabet was invented, McLuhan believes that people became more detached because they no longer needed to come together to discuss things as a collective group (Griffin 316). With the invention of the printing press by Gutenberg came “The Print Age.” The effect of print, McLuhan believed, was isolation and separation (Griffin 317). The “Electronic Age” is the period we are currently living and my blog entry will now take the time to discuss the effects “The Electronic Age” and the new ways in which we communicate with each other has had on our society.
According to McLuhan, “The Electronic Age” has brought our society into a “global village” in which everyone knows each other as well as their business (Griffin 317). I get the impression that McLuhan believes that the new advances of technology can prove to be detrimental to our community because they are capable of distorting the content of a message. In class we discussed ways that communication technology has failed us each as individuals by sharing stories (some humiliating!) in which something was perceived differently due to the WAY it was presented in text. Although mostly comical, these stories are living proof that our media environment is important to consider when trying to get a message across.
I definitely see where McLuhan is coming from in regards to new mediums causing us to grow closer, yet farther apart at the same time. For example, the internet has enabled us to come into contact with anyone, anytime, anywhere with the quick click of a button. By joining Facebook, I was able to come into contact with family members who live in Hungary whom I have not seen since I was ten years old and kindergarten friends with whom I spent my childhood with. The inventions of e-mail and text messaging has made communication so easy and quick that people are more willing to get in touch with each other because it is not a burden. However, communication technology has detracted from the personal aspect of getting in touch with someone. I think this article sums up this argument pretty clearly: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/365514/technology_making_life_easier_while_pg2.html?cat=9
Email, texting, and instant messaging has taken over as the mediums of communication because they are so easy to use and so quick. But, how sentimental are they? They aren’t! You cannot save a text message for years and years to come nor can you reflect on a beautifully, handwritten email. Although an email or a handwritten letter received in the mail may both carry the same message, that is an irrelevant point. The way this message is presented, or the medium, is what reflects its content as well as the person who sent it. Take for example that you are invited on a date with a boy or girl you have been wanting to get to know. Would you be more inclined to accept the invitation if the invitation was by text message or by phone call? Would the medium by which he or she presented the invitation have an effect on your opinion of him or her? It is a very interesting scenario to look at and I find that, in these days, young men and women are more likely to initiate conversation with the opposite sex via Facebook or text message because it is seen as less awkward and more casual. However, I think I would personally have a lot more respect for someone that was able to approach me and have a conversation face to face with me!
I do believe that McLuhan’s findings should be taken into consideration the next time we have to consider how to approach someone about something. A few weeks ago, someone confronted me with a problem they had with me via Facebook message. Although their message was presented clearly, I felt that sending a Facebook message appeared cowardly and a bit immature at this age. In other words, the medium outplayed the message. If that person had chosen to confront me in person or even call me on the phone to speak, the same message may have had a different effect on me and my response and reaction to the message may have been different.
Nov 27, 2010 @ 21:43:11
“The medium is the message” is a catchy, easy to remember phrase that definitely fits to our global village. McLuhan makes a great point by analyzing something more than just the language someone uses. I like the way he makes it seem very subconscious, the way we judge one another’s forms of communication, yet also very important. I also agree with how people applaud face to face communication over text messaging, sometimes disregarding what is said.
Nov 27, 2010 @ 21:44:42
sorry Katie I accidentally posted it before I was ready haha
I also love the sentimental aspect your brought up regarding different mediums of communication. It is always something I take into account!
Nov 30, 2010 @ 00:49:44
Thanks Jackie =)
Nov 30, 2010 @ 04:31:15
Katie great blog! Your clarity has helped me better understand McLuhan’s argument.
I agree with you. We’ve all had experiences where our medium hinders the actual message trying to be conveyed. Set aside us worrying about our message and exactly what we mean by it we have to worry about the medium as well. Mediums can deceive you and alter the meaning of messages altogether. As a result of this matter it is crucial to be aware of the medium you are using when communicating something with someone. If it is not face-to-face communication one has to be extremely specific and descriptive to avoid empty words and phrases.
Our era is so consumed by technology that messages are becoming meaningless and emotionless. You ponder yourself “how sentimental are they?” and it’s true they really aren’t. My grandmother for example would always call me and my family members for their birthday or send letters but now she actually TEXTS!!!!! Although it’s kind of cool it is also disappointing because I looked forward to her calls or letters. Are we being desensitized as a race by constantly using technology and these mediums? What do you think?
Check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7reQIVKsV4 of a human text message. John Quigley has created a human text message to support working families who have been devastated by the oil spill in Grand Isle, LA. Rather than spreading a simple email, text or commercial he takes his time to create a large scale human message. This unique medium of expression speaks a lot and is even more impactful than the use of any other medium. Furthermore this video illuminates McLuhan’s theory that the medium is the message.
Dec 02, 2010 @ 20:19:19
Katie: I agree with Jackie and Angelina. You’ve written a fine account of, and analyses based on, McLuhan. You provide us an interesting reflection on mediated interpersonal communication, and illustrate how we interpret particular media (pl.). So an email would be more “serious” than a FB message, that would be more “serious” than a text… YOu made me think that it would be very interesting to research such “emotionally-weighted positions” or “value-ranks” of different media as “carriers” of different kinds of contents — i.e., how people perceive different media “as messages”. Any critique of McL? Or do you think he’s right to the point with his theory?
Also, thanks to Angelina, I begun to wonder what McL would have thought of multimediality…
Dec 03, 2010 @ 16:18:17
Thanks for the feedback!
Dec 03, 2010 @ 16:20:06
In response to your question about the critique of his theory, I would definitely say that it was a little difficult to understand. His theory was one of those that needed examples in order to clarify it better.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 12:38:46
In an age where social networking sites are among the top most visited sites in the internet, Twitter sticks out from the pack. (Twitter is an electronic service through which one can update his or her friends about where they are, what they’re doing, how they feel) I have never encountered a social networking site that is so vehemently detested by one half of the population and loved by the other half. Other social networking sites, in my experience, have a full spectrum of reactions. Sites such as Facebook and MySpace have moderate supporters and those who tolerate them. Twitter, on the other hand, seems to evoke a very polarized reaction from the public. As new and revolutionary as Twitter is, it is bound by the constraints of medium and message as defined by Marshall McLuhan. Perhaps through the lens of two of McLuhan’s we can shed some light upon the reaction of the general public to Twitter.
Marshall McLuhan (http://www.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/mcluhan1.jpg what a great guy!) saw more than one mode of media in prominence throughout his lifetime. He was a visionary in that he saw beyond the message. He saw much further than the content, in fact he nearly completely ignores the content and focuses on the medium through which the content is being communicated. The medium could be a person’s voice, a light bulb, a radio, a book, or a computer connected to the internet. For McLuhan, the medium does not only transform the message being transmitted, but it is in fact the message.
Another idea that that McLuhan is the rise of the ‘global village.’ With the introduction of electronic means of communication, the once expansive world now seems much smaller sue to the fact that people are engaging in near instantaneous forms of communication. People are learning about happenings in and exchanging information with far reaches of the globe with relative speed, much as if it were just like one large village. The internet has magnified this to such an extent that there is little delay in receiving breaking news from far reaches of the other side of the Earth.
Twitter has two different but similar mediums that accomplish slightly different effects. I joined Twitter as a junior in high school for the sake of staying in the loop with my friends, who were all starting to get Twitter accounts. One could use Twitter through a computer by logging on and looking at a person’s updates on a page. An alternative way of using Twitter is through ones cell phone. By using one’s cell phone, one can receive text alerts as to people’s tweets and send tweets of their own. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddO9idmax0o)
I opted for the latter option which resulted in driving me nuts. I was constantly receiving tweets about the most inconsequential of happenings in people’s lives. Needless to say, I soon grew annoyed of Twitter. Without realizing it, I had realized that the message of each tweet mattered little. What bothered me in the end was the fact of the meaning of the medium. The medium of the phone as a Tweeting platform meant in and of itself that people will not be Tweeting rarely about large events but frequently about lesser events. The medium conveyed the idea that I could and may have needed to be connected to multiple people at one and know what each of them was doing every single minute of the day.
This medium largely contributes to the idea of the global village because many people are in constant commune with one another. However, the village facilitated by Twitter is a much more frantic one, where the focus is more to express one’s self rather than have a true dialogue. There are countless tweets happening all at once. At times, the amount of tweets to process at once can be dizzying. Each tweet means less than an actually conversation with a person (keep in mind that the message communicated by the medium is constant and frequent transfers of information as opposed to the receiving, processing, and responding that might take place in a face-to-face conversation). For this reason I believe that the message of the medium can be unappealing to some and appealing to others, because different individuals have their own styles of interpersonal communication.
Nov 24, 2010 @ 21:59:02
Quetzalli, I completely agree with you on how annoying Tweets can be sent to your phone. I refuse to be a part of the TwitterRevolution for the sole reason that you wrote about. Who cares what everyone in the world is doing at every second of the day? Is that information really necessary? No, not at all. My mom was even thinking about getting one and I said “What could you possibly tweet about?–I’m going to Costco to get some chicken.” The one thing Twitter did have a great effect on that I noticed was during Obama’s Inaugural Speech, one of the news casters told viewers to follow her on Twitter to receive even more up-to-date information.
Nov 29, 2010 @ 20:06:44
Quetzalli, I think you make a really interesting point when you talk about receiving updates on twitter. Personally, I have never really understood the point of it, twitter just seems to be a site where all you can do is status updates, just like on Facebook. I really don’t how to keep up with all their lingo on there, like I don’t know what # means to them or even @. I think you make a great point when you say, “There are countless tweets happening all at once. At times, the amount of tweets to process at once can be dizzying. Each tweet means less than an actually conversation with a person.” What we want to say to someone can be almost as important as how we say it someone. If we have something really important to say to someone, such as a big question like “Will you be my girlfriend?”, or something along those lines, we have to have the right way to say it. While our thoughts and what we say may be meaningful, everything can get lost if we do not communicate it in the right way. If we just shoot someone a text when we want to ask them a serious question, or even just say something nice, they can get mad at us for not choosing a better way to say it. Eventually, you just want to talk to someone face to face, rather than have a relationship with them on the screen. At some point, the message becomes less meaningful than the medium, if the wrong medium is used.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 03:25:02
Quetzalli,
I’ll be honest, your example of Twitter to explain McLuhan’s “medium is the message” idea really helped me fully understand it. I was stuck on it because I kept thinking that surely people still heard what people are saying on TV and didn’t only focus on the TV’s medium. I think why the Twitter example helped is because Tweets are so meaningless. I don’t mean to put down Twitter– though I don’t know why people use it— but as that video “Twitter in Plain English” says Twitter helps people share what happens to your life when know one is around to hear it. I realized that tweets purposefully don’t contain enough valuable information. Instead (for the most part) they are just used to fill a void in a person’s present situation by being a substitute friend or someone who will listen. So for Twitter, the messages individuals send out aren’t as important as the void the medium fills. In your case, when you began receiving an annoying amount of Tweets you weren’t reading messages but just felt the medium was just one-sided. People needed to talk more than people needed to listen.
Of course some people do see value in Twitter, and probably don’t tweet about the most inconsequential of things. But without a doubt for most people twitter is just a means of medium not message. This really helped me understand McLuhan, so thanks.
Markian.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 08:32:55
Quetzalli,
Great analysis! I am one of those people completely against twitter. I really liked the way you were able to break away from the content on twitter to analyze just the mediums and messages. I tend to have difficulty ignoring the content of personal messages. The internet is probably the best example used to explain the global village. It still surprises me that McLuhan wrote about this without ever observing todays society.
Dec 02, 2010 @ 20:38:51
Quetzalli: I begin to sound like a bore here but – I agree with other bloggers. An apt description of those McLuhan’s key ideas that we discussed in class. In addition, a relevant case study: Twitter might be a phenomenon closest to McLuhan’s slogany idea of MitM, and at the same time speak to the concept of the GV. Although, you made me think about whether we should call Twitter a medium, or whether it’s a communicative genre/platform, transmitted through two main media, the internet/computer and the mobile phone. And whether that would make a difference in terms of testing/validating McL’s theories — or not. What do you think?
Nov 23, 2010 @ 15:56:10
The Medium is the Message
-Why the movie is never better than the book
Marshall McLuhan, one of the great media scholars of the past century had a profound influence in his field with his many books and ideas. Throughout his career, he has analyzed the various affects media can have on the individual and society. His 1951 book The Mechanical Bride he analyzes the medias ability to be persuasive through an analysis of various advertisements. In his 1988 book Laws of Media he introduces the Tetrad of media effects which showed how various forms of media can enhance something or even make obsolete. One of his most famous and groundbreaking ideas was introduced in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man where he first coined the term The Medium is the Message. The term has become a staple in Media Theory because it offers us an explanation of how we are influenced by the media. He states that the medium itself and not the message it expresses influences us more. That is because the medium itself influences how we perceive the message. That idea is both interesting and relevant to our lives today because it influences the way we perceive the world around us.
This can be applied to several real life phenomena most of which we can relate to. We may have different reactions to a message depending on the way we receive it. For example: If I receive a funny text message from a friend it probably wouldn’t be as funny if I heard it face to face because i am not seeing his mannerisms which add to the humor. The same can be said for a misunderstanding through text. Because the medium (text) is limited, there is only so much of the message we can actually receive. In interpersonal communication, body language (the medium) is a huge influence on how we receive messages. Politicians exploit that all the time as they use that to get people to listen to them. Take President Obama as an example. During his presidential campaign in 2008, he used his mediums as a means to take the country by storm. His strong orator skills combined with his welcoming body language such as open arms and palms, smiles and good posture, really influenced millions of voters. We relate to this on a personal level as well because we also use body language to express ourselves. We also use clothing to express how we want to be perceived by others. Whether we dress neatly, messy, or witty it expresses our personalities and serves as our own personal “medium.” Our style will also influence how others perceive us and speak to us. Our body language and appearance are what build first impressions, which is a key part of interpersonal communication.
In addition to influencing how we perceive others, the term The Medium is the Message also influences how we perceive various messages in the media. One of my favorite examples of this is when a movie is released that was based on a book. People who have read the book beforehand will inevitably express their disappointments and critiques of the movie, often saying, “The book was better than the movie!” In recent years movies based on book franchises such as the Lord of the Ring and Harry Potter series have heard this critique. Now how does that relate to McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message”? It is a completely different experience being told a story from a book than a movie. When we read the book, we picture all the scenes in our heads like our own personal movie. When we see a movie based on that book, it is basically competing with our own imaginations. The original medium (the book) allowed us to receive the message in our minds. The new medium (The movie) often fails to relay the message as effectively as the book did as a result. The stories in the book and the movie were no different but the mediums were the key in how people perceived the story.
While many people agree with McLuhan’s idea, others find issue with the medium being the focus of attention. Others would stress the importance of the message itself instead of the medium. It is argued that without a message, a medium will be of no use. To them it would be like a book with no words. However at the same time a message must always have a medium, so they seem to be dependent on each other. What sets the medium apart is that it influences how well we receive a message. We may hate or even love a message depending how we receive it. Another example of this came during McLuhan’s time during the presidential debates between Richard Nixon and John F Kennedy. A certain part of the American population heard the debates through the radio while others saw it on television. Those that heard it on the radio were impressed with Nixon’s message while those who saw it on Television were not impressed with Nixon’s nervous postures and body language and instead praised Kennedy’s presence. The mediums in both of those instances influenced people’s opinions on each of the candidates. This phenomenon also applies to my earlier example of books vs. movies. People who read the book before the movie comes out are usually disappointed with the movie because it was not as strong of a medium as a book which extends to our own imaginations. Ultimately McLuhan’s The Medium is The Message not only tells us about the media’s influence on us but it tells us a little about ourselves. It shows us how we perceive different people and messages depending on the mediums. It is relevant and important to our lives because we encounter it everyday when exposed to ads, commercials, or even speaking to new people or watching something on TV. Ideas like these are what made Marshall McLuhan one of the main figures in media theory.
Nov 24, 2010 @ 17:24:20
Isacio, I definately agree with you. I loved the example you used about our everyday lives. The way we dress is the “medium” which is true because when I walk into a room with complete strangers, I don’t know anything about them EXCEPT the way they carry themselves, the way they’re dressed. If I see someone slouching in their chair, with dirty shirt on, the message I am getting is that he’s a slob.
Nov 25, 2010 @ 17:38:45
Hey Isacio,
I agree with your analysis of McLuhan. Your examples support his ideas very well. I especially liked the example of how people always say “the book is better than the movie”. I never hear the opposite, “I like the movie more than the book”. McLuhan alluded to this phenomena when he distinguished film from literature. He said film emphasizes on one sense while literature requires that the reader is consciously involved.
Nov 29, 2010 @ 23:54:02
Isacio, I also really liked your point that books appeal to most people more than movies- if they’ve read the book first. People like using their imaginations, and books allow more creativity, as well as give the reader the ability to shape the characters to their own needs. Even though a movie might carry the same message as the book, everything is already handed out to the viewer, and they rarely live up to their standards. Since McLuhan’s motto was “the medium is the message,” this is definitely a clear example.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 04:23:40
Isacio,
great analysis of Mcluhan. As many of the people have already replied, I 100% agree with the thought that the book is better than the movie. Having read all of the Harry Potters and Lord of the Rings series, i can personally attest to this as fact. However, a thought…what if an individual sees a movie and then decides to read the book that inspired it, would it not in essence, ruin the imagination that the book delivers because of the already pre-conceived notions of what and how the characters are? Its hard to remember distinctly, but after the first Harry Potter came out I was disappointed, but i can remember that it shaped the way I read the rest of the series…the characters had personalities that I myself had not created. It may have taken away from the experience, but one cannot unsee what they may have seen.
Dec 02, 2010 @ 20:51:28
Isacio: Your view on McLuhan is very close to mine (but we might be quite wrong about the matter) — see my comment to Chabelly about the collaboration, or interaction, between a medium and content… You add to the mix the idea that the more “work” we need to do (books vs. movies), the better, or more pleasurable, the communication situation (think about McL’s ideas of hot and cold media). The other commentators here seem to agree with that analysis. Thank you for the well summarized intro/basic description of his ideas.
Nov 23, 2010 @ 16:53:11
Marshall Mcluhan, was a visionary of his time, he predicted, in his theories, a potential threat to the intelligence of our youth and to the state of communication all together. He claimed that the medium is the message, in so far as a light bulb can in itself be a message by illuminating darkness. In the light bulb example, Mcluhan explains, the bulb does not contain any content, but by its presence alone creates an environment. Therefore, when we examine the message being portrayed it is not important to merely understand the content, but understand it in the light of the medium in which it is presented. In his work Understanding Media, Mcluhan provides a neat analogy to better explain his idea. In it, he claims that the content is like a piece of meat carried by a burglar. The guard dog that is our mind tends to see only the obvious (meat/ content) and disregard how the burglar is subtly gaining entrance and changing our perception. Over time we learn of the changes made, predominately through technology (the medium).
To tie his theory into a modern problem, we have to look no further than the cultural phenomena that is text messaging. Through texting we present words, with no emotion or background information to aid the receiver. We become the interpreter and can read the words anyway we wish. The same message, such as “I’m fine” can be read as a pleasant response, but behind the screen, the sender may have in fact been angry and sent that message attempting to be blunt. This poses a problem, how can we as a society communicate accurately without emotion and body language? Albert Mehrebian’s research claims that 55% of communication is presented through body language, and 38% is understood by tone. This leaves a mere 7% to the actual words alone (http://www.bodylanguageexpert.co.uk/communication-what-percentage-body-language.html). By texting, we are using only 7% of our communication skills, seems rather primitive doesn’t it? A phone call on the contrary, at least allows us to present varying tones, and in that regard gives the receiver at least a 45% chance of fully understanding the real message.
Another problem that arises from the texting phenomena, is practically a new language developed by the youth of America. Although we may be able to understand the phrase, “Wht r u up 2 2nite?” It is in no way proper for our youth to “accidentally” write that in a paper, or other writing of academia. An interesting website I found,(http://www.helium.com/items/1061740-communicating-in-text-message-style-is-it-ruining-real-communication?page=2) had a debate regarding texting and interestingly enough when you view the poll “Is texting ruining real communication?” it was nearly a split decision at 51% yes and 49% no. Also on this site, is a persuasive argument from a concerned mother about her children and their texting habits. When reading this argument I couldn’t help but agree with her feelings on the subject. She brings up a very valid point that is proven logically: speaking (i.e. calling) is much more practical and advantageous than texting. In the time it takes for you to type up the sentence on your phone and receive a reply, you could have called that person, received your answer and proceeded onto to something else.
More to the point, when you are in a conversation with a person with whom you may have feelings for, would it not be much more intimate for that person to give you a call allowing you to hear his/her voice? I know first-hand that simply typing I love you to someone does not nearly have the same impact as taking the time to say it audibly. As a society it seems we are headed in one of two directions, we are either becoming lazier as technology allows us to be, or we are becoming less intimate in our relationships. Today Mcluhan, would probably interpret the medium of text messaging as merely a primitive means of communication and would not see it as a viable means of conveying intimacy or work related subject matter.
On a related note, I found an interesting clip on youtube that talks about the future of communication as a whole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu0ztxdsFis It is interesting to follow the various forms of media, watching as each becomes obsolete and replaced by another. Where does this leave us? Are we destined to a vicious cycle in which we cannot distinguish content from medium. If the clip is factual, and virtual life becomes prevalent, what will become THE medium, and how will we separate real from virtual? Looking at Mcluhan’s theory now, we can clearly see how the medium can be the message. However, if in the future we have a virtual life as well as a real one, will the lines be blurred? Can the medium become real life, and the content become experience? This questions both intrigue and scare me, perhaps you, the reader have thoughts on the matter?
Dec 02, 2010 @ 20:58:37
Jon: I’m inclined to agree with your assessment of McLuhan’s possible assessment of that sneaky burglar of texting. You made me think that the question is about a strange kind of neo-tribal behaviour, to maximize connections rather than to share information. Thank you also for interesting statistical information. How about some critique on McL’s ideas? Any opposing thoughts?
Nov 23, 2010 @ 17:41:23
In the early 1950’s, a man named Harold Innis developed what is known as the Toronto School of Communication Theory. This school of thought is characterized by the belief that “communication systems create psychological and social states.” Innis believed that ““the principal medium of communication in every historical period addresses the need to transfer information through time and space with optimal efficiency and causes the “displacement” of an earlier medium, which then becomes obsolete.” A man named Marshall McLuhan was a “disciple” of Innis and would eventually bring ideas behind the Toronto School to the masses. McLuhan’s contribution to this school of thought was the analysis of the social impact made by the invention of the printing press and television. The underlying principle of his theory was that “protracted use of a dominant medium would influence the dominant culture, the social structure and cognitive processes of individual.” In his life, McLuhan tried to explain how “the medium is the message,” and how this changes our environment when the mediums change due to technological development.
For McLuhan, electric and other forms of media “are a physical extension of our own organic nervous system.” Media such as, photographs, television, film, print, and even microscopes and telescopes extend our eyes. The ears are similarly extended through sound via telephone, radio, television, “and other familiar means of communication.” Inherently they way humans process information they see with their eyes is different than how they process information they hear with their ears. For example, the “visual man, paradoxically, is detached, but he always has an aim or a goal. He finds it natural to isolate a special point on the horizon where he is heading, whether in travel or in career. He is en route, striving to attain.” This difference is due to the construction of his brains environmental construction. Through human history certain developments in communication technology have caused our way of thinking to shift.
The first period of time is the Tribal Age. “According to McLuhan, the tribal village was an acoustic place where the senses of hearing, touch, taste, and smell were developed far beyond the ability to visualize.” Hearing is more valuable to the uncivilized human due to its ability to make one immediately aware of their surroundings. Sight limits us to sensing “what is clearly in front of us.” This period is known as the tribal age because McLuhan suggests that the “omnidirectional quality of sound” makes it a shared experience. Sounds also have the quality of being immediate; existing only in the moment they are created. This is an important distinction from visual experiences, which are “fixed and objectified.”
Our next communications development was the creation of written language. McLuhan calls this period the Age of Literacy. He believes that this transition diminished our sense of community by amplifying our “private, left-brain point-of-view.” The lasting quality of words allowed detachment from communities because people no longer needed to be with in hearing distance to communicate. Also, by organizing our language into something lasting we had time to take in information and process it accordingly. It was now possible though for information to be taken out of context.
Humanity’s third era of development is referred to, by McLuhan, as the Print Age. This period of time is recognized by the invention of the printing press. This invention allowed information to become available to the masses. Another effect of the printing press was the “homogenization of fluid regional tongues into fixed national language.” In his opinion, this helped to cause the rise of nationalism. The Print Age is defined by mans ability to simultaneously be “alienated from others and from the immediacy of their surroundings,” while also providing them with a sense of unity, which was lost in transition from an oral to visual society.
The final period that McLuhan specifically addresses is the Electronic Age. The first invention of the electronic age was the telegraph, which allowed information to instantly be transferred over great distances. It was McLuhan’s belief that “electronic media are retribalizing the human race. Instant communication has returned us to a pre-alphabetic oral tradition where sound and touch are more important than sight.” Its important to note that McLuhan’s understanding of touch is unconventional. McLuhan states that:
“The new physics tells us that touch is not connection but a gap where things rub, like the gap between the wheel and the axle. There has to be “play” here, if they are to “keep in touch.” When the wheel and axle get too close together they “seize up” in a bind. When they get too far apart, they collapse. When our eyes look at things on TV, they also behave as if they were handling or touching the image. They rub over its, so to speak.”
This change from the importance sight to sound and touch in connection with the ability to transfer information over vast distances has created a global village. We have the ability and the propensity to have constant contact with people all over the world with whom we can share ideas, stories, and opinions. In McLuhan’s opinion the difference between visual and acoustic people is that visual people are linear and care about logical conclusions, whereas, acoustic people care about how things make them feel in the moment.
Today, we are in a state of limbo. Our new digital technologies are electronic in nature, meaning that they connect people over vast distances instantly, however, there appears to be a shift from the creation of one global village. Although, we have an increasing ability to share ideas and interact with vast numbers of people we are being selective with what we share and with whom we share. Instead of creating one world village like McLuhan suggested, the reality is that people are forming many different world villages. When I search something online, for example Fordham University, I utilize the web site google.com. The information that I receive is the exact information that any person in the world will find using Google. In essence by using the same website we are privy to the same information. Somebody utilizing another search engine would retrieve different results or at least retrieve the same results in different ranking. Thus, our understanding of the world is different than theirs. This relates to McLuhan’s theory of media ecology as an extension. In McLuhan’s time he wasn’t aware of the possibilities that computers and the Internet would bring. Today, there are over 2 billion web domains. This would have been unfathomable in a time when computers were the size of buildings and could do very little. So, without computers, things would have been the way McLuhan described. The difference isn’t in our communication behavior, we are still acoustic rather than visual, and it is just our nature to seek out like-minded individuals when given the opportunity. The Internet is a medium of endless opportunity.
Works Cited
Blondheim, Menahem, and Rita P. M. Watson. The Toronto School of Communication Theory: Interpretations, Extensions, Applications. [Toronto]: University of Toronto, 2007. Print.
Country, By. “Alexa Top 500 Global Sites.” Alexa the Web Information Company. Web. 23 Nov. 2010. .
Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009. Print.
Sanderson, George, Frank Macdonald, and Marshall McLuhan. Marshall McLuhan: the Man and His Message. Golden, Col.: Fulcru
Dec 03, 2010 @ 00:30:49
Erik: A Thorough and thoughtful comment. I greatly appreciated the contextualization you provided, from Innis on. Also, the “extension” idea wasn’t much discussed in class –and you highlighted it here: good!
But you made me think about this, again (related to my previous comments on this thread): Is it, after all, content that matters, at least equally to the medium? At least the discussions around Google (and other search engines) are most often about content — that we tend to use only a few engines, and they guide us to certain content and may prefer some content (sites) over others, as well as collect content (information, preferences) about us. So while much of the Internet seems and feels like an extension of us, it’s also about content. I’m thinking about FB as an extension of myself, very much in terms of content… Also, a network is not, one could say by definition, linear…
Your post made me think about media ecology more broadly… It IS a compelling way of looking at communication, somehow very much related to science and technology studies… And yet… (more about this re: Habermas).
Nov 23, 2010 @ 18:07:57
Marshall McLuhan revolutionized the world of communications in the 1960’s when he came up with his famous phrase, “The medium is the the message.” McLuhan first came up with this concept in his 1964 work, “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”, but continued on it in his 1967 book, “The Medium is the Massage”. What McLuhan means here is that the medium in which a certain message is conveyed can be as influential, if not more influential, than the message itself. McLuhan proposes that the medium conveying the message, rather than the actual message, should be the focus of our analysis. McLuhan states that a message can be received differently based on the media in which it is conveyed.
I think McLuhan makes some excellent points with this theory. He makes it very easy to understand by creating a “tetride”, that makes his theory easy to follow. In this tetride the type of medium is placed in the center, with four diamonds surrounding it, making a sort or crooked cross. These four corners of the tetride include what the medium enhances, retrieves what the medium recovers we may have lost in the past, what the medium reverses, and what the medium makes obsolete. By providing his theory in a manageable chart, McLuhan caters to the average person, making it easier for everyone to understand his ideas without having to read over lengthy and complicated material. For example, Herman & Chomsky do not really help the average person with their ideas, as they present them in a wordy and complex form, which may turn off anyone who doesn’t feel like giving up a lot of time.
A real world example of McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” theory is the television. If we place television in the center of the “tetride”, we can clearly see how the medium of television is affecting the message it is portraying.
First and foremost, we look at what it enhances, which is in this case the presentation of news and entertainment. Television allows news station to present their messages in new forms with visual aids and numerous experts on the subject. Entertainment can also be used to present messages, such as in sitcoms or soap operas.
Next, we can see that television retrieves what we have given up in the past in the form of body language. In the past when listening to someone’s opinions on a subject, we either had to read the ideas in print or listen on the radio. Now we can see if a person looks like they are lying, flustered, or if they look calm and knowledgeable. An example of this is the Nixon-Kennedy debate, in which on the radio Nixon appeared to win based on his speech and ideas, but on the television Nixon appeared frazzled and was sweating, making the viewers of that medium see him in a different light.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QazmVHAO0os)
In the third diamond we look at what television can do when pushed to its limits, which is in this case HDTV or even 3DTV. This medium has not had much influence on the message yet, since not many people have them, and their differences to normal television have not really been seen yet. However, we can look to see if they present clearer images or ideas in the future to enhance their messages.
Finally, we can see in the last diamond that television has made radio obsolete. Of course some still listen to the radio, but for the most part television is the source of spoken news. This comes back to the body language element of television that radio simply doesn’t have. A message on the radio can come across completely differently, as a hand gesture to signify sarcasm can not be seen by the listener, and other body gestures influencing the message aren’t seen. Television makes theses messages clearer and easier to understand because of these differences.
Another idea McLuhan presented was the idea of the “global village”. Here McLuhan states that the globe has been contracted due to the communication means created by technology. He believes that rather than only belonging to the community in which we leave, we all now reside in this “global village”, where all of us can be connected.
I certainly agree with McLuhan here, as the advancements of cell phones, email, and facebook have made for a much closer globe. People in America can talk to someone in China without having to take a plane, but simply logging into their computer. These mediums have helped humans become much closer to each other. An example of this is college students in the 80’s versus students today. Back then it was always such a big deal on how to keep in touch with your high school friends once you went to college. They either had to resort to phone calls from a pay phone, or the weekly letter, making communication difficult at times. Now, we can simply shoot someone a text at anytime of the day, send them a facebook wall post, or call them on our cell phones. Technology has shrunk the distance between people across the globe, making it easier for us to communicate with everyone and keep relationships intact.
McLuhan’s ideas may have been ahead of his time, seeing as how he had no idea of what was to come. He could not have predicted how small his “global village” would become. The world has literally been downsized from long, strenuous flights, to a simple click on the computer. We must also consider if this global village can get any smaller. It seems like we have made so many strides in our technological devices the last few years, but more can be done. There has always been talk about the videophone, and even now the latest iphone has begun to tap into that.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUaFaKApPX4&feature=player_embedded#!)
Soon, the telephone itself will become like the radio, old and obsolete, while video chatting and the video phone will take its place, and make it possible for us to talk face to face to anyone at anytime.
Nov 30, 2010 @ 03:59:32
Chester,
Out of all the comments about Mcluhan’s catchy phrase “The medium is the message,” your examples stood out the most. You mentioned the obvious effects of social networking on today’s society; and how the instant feel of messaging has somewhat replaced the feeling of receiving a maessage through other mefiums. You use different examples of television as the medium acting as a message. You mention the introduction of three dimensional televisions on todays society. But it is your Nixon/Kennedy example of a real life medium acting as a message. Nixon was a shoo in to win the election through his demeanor over Kennedy on the radio, but when televised debates started to become popular, people noticed Kennedy’s poise and charm over Nixon’s nervousness and wrinkles. This definatley altered the tide of the election through the practical use McLuhan’s ideas. Just imagine if telivision boomed after the election, and Nixon won the presidency. Major events such as the Cuban Missle Crisis and JFK’s assassination would have been severley altered the face of America today. Just imagine the possibilities!
Great Work!
Nov 30, 2010 @ 09:15:24
It is true that modern communication tools like text and emails cuts the distance between people in different areas of the world. However, I also think it can create distance with the people who are in your area. For example, you meet a friend B through friend A through an online chat room. You and friend B begin to converse, a lot. You feel like you know and understand friend B but when you actually meet in person, they are a lot different from their online persona. I feel that a lot of people grow more confident online when they don’t actually see the other person’s face. In this way, your social skills can be affected if you rely on communication tools to understand people. I think that the best way to shrink the distance between any two people is to actually meet face-to-face and talk.
Dec 01, 2010 @ 05:56:32
Chester your introduction perfectly explains how the “medium is the message”. When I read your blog post the first thing I thought about was how McLuhan’s ideas tie into Fiske’s theory about popular culture. We are highly influenced by what we see on television. It is absolutely true that the radio has somewhat become less important than what it was many years ago. I would highly prefer to watch an advertisement on the television rather than listening to it on the radio. While watching, the viewer is able to visually take in the message. If you are interested in a product the image is burned into your memory.
I am also fascinated by his idea of the “global village.” Thanks to e-mailing and text messaging I can keep in touch with my family living in different countries. Without these means of technology, it would be very hard to maintain a steady relationship with them. I would have probably lost interest due to the frustration of actually having to sit down and write a letter!
With your example of college students in the 80s it is amazing to see how much technology has since changed. As the years go by it is only improving therefore making the “message” easier to convey.
Dec 03, 2010 @ 00:43:53
Chester: You praise McLuhan for his practical approach. Although many scholars would not agree with you (they’d say McL has great ideas but little empirical evidence or normative suggestions — remember his disciple Postman who then went on discussing TV as the medium and its dangers, see also Chabelly’s post) your own post exemplifies clarity and systematic thinking, with concrete evidence. Extra points for contrasting McL with H&A — to-the-point. You present McL’s tetride model well with good examples. But how about some critique? Something that doesn’t work?