The reading “The Medium is the Message” by Marshall McLuhan was very difficult to get a handle on. I could tell I was not the only one who was slightly confused by the article after reading Bob's blog, and I was glad I wasn't the only one! I felt that it was very philosophical and it made me think about how new media effects culture in a different way. I am not saying that I agree with all of his arguments, but some of his ideas were thought-provoking. I thought his basic idea that the medium through which we express our ideas is the message, was in itself pretty complicated. I also liked the second part of the text talking about hot and cold media, just because I had never heard of any of it before.
When Marshall McLuhan states that the “medium is the message”, I think he means that it is not the content that delivers the message, but the medium. This idea has a direct connection to our previous discussions about rhetoric on form vs. content. McLuhan would argue that how the content is presented is what makes the content worth listening to. The way he describes it, he feels that the medium is even more important than the message. I disagree with this because if there was no message to give, than you would not need the medium. I think that the medium enhances the message, but the message is still the most important part when presenting something. I agree that new media is important and it shapes our cultures, but ultimately the message is the reason for inventing new media in order to deliver it better. I do think McLuhan’s point that electric media will bring us back to a more oral rather than print based culture is very valid. However, although the internet may not be considered “print”, it opens up new ways to communicate to one another through writing. Then again, McLuhan was not around to see the internet. The other point in the article that I found interesting was that the content of any medium is always another medium. It is kind of a never ending circle. A few examples he gives is that the content of writing is speech, the written word is the content of print, and print is the content of the telegraph.
The other section of this article focused on hot vs. cold media. I did not have a clear understanding of this distinction until our class discussion on Tuesday. We were all a little confused about a few topics such as TV, but overall I think we got the idea. McLuhan says in hot media there is low participation, high definition, and more information. Cold media is just the opposite. Some examples for hot media are movies, radio, the waltz, and writing. On the other hand, cold media are things like conversation, telephone, the twist, and TV. I am still a little confused about how TV and movies can be in opposite categories. I feel that watching TV does not take any more participation than going to a movie. The only explanation I can think of is that, in McLuhan’s mind, TV was a family affair, and that, while watching TV, you were participating and talking with one another about the show. I think over time TV may have shifted more into hot media. One paragraph that I completely do not understand or agree with is on page 41 of his article where he describes that he thinks we can control the emotional climate in countries if we allow them to either listen to the radio or watch TV more. Does he really believe that that is possible? To me, that whole idea seems completely outrageous.
2 comments:
I completely agree with you that there needs to be a message first before you have a medium. While I was reading the chapters I think I may have yelled that out loud a couple of times--and then I received odd looks from other people studying around me. I also agree with your point about how TV could encourage participation, but then I still don't understand why McLuhon would have put radio in a separate category.
If I may add a belated comment to your post... My understanding of McLuhan's "the medium is the message" is different. to me, this has always meant that the medium (of communication) can become an end in itself. Communication (the message) is secondary to the means (of communication), which it perpetuates (i.e. sells). This spurs the development of ever more efficient means of communication (telephone, cell phone, iPhone, internet phone) for its own sake as it were. In the same way advertising advertises advertising. You are right in saying that this is a form/content-like situation and, further, that it is a circle. It is very difficult to get a handle on this, I agree.
Post a Comment