"The Medium is the Message"

For me, reading “The Medium is the Message” is very helpful in learning where the bulk of today’s media studies began. McLuhan’s concept that it isn’t the art created that is the message, but the actual technology that allows that art to exist is very interesting. He references electric light saying, “Whether the light is being used for brain surgery or night baseball is a matter of indifference.” I understand his point and see how at the time his work was considered revolutionary for discussing this topic, but to me, this argument seems weak. I envision a Russian doll scenario when talking about this. If the “electric light” displaying the images on TV is the message then that would mean that the photon gun in the TV that creates the electric light is the actual message. But metal and other materials make up the photon gun, so are they the real message? I could keep going on, but a line has to be drawn. I believe that the development of electric light has had a great impact on our ability to transmit messages, but it is not the message itself. The first videos of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, a moment of national pride and togetherness, and ones of Hitler dominating the stage carry two different messages. To say that because electric light allows these images to be shown to so many people, it is the real message, oversimplifies the discussion.

Later in the chapter, McLuhan cites David Sarnoff, who said, “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” McLuhan seems to disagree, sarcastically saying that Apple pie, smallpox, or guns could be seen as either good or bad. I agree with McLuhan in the sense that there are certain things in life that are inherently good or bad, but Sarnoff’s statement absolutely “bears scrutiny.” There is a large middle ground where a message can be shaped and have a completely different effect on the viewer.

I feel that while the medium is very important in determining how the viewer will absorb material, it is not the most pressing issue anymore. The ease at which anyone can get information from the internet means that the media itself is the most important message, not how it gets delivered to the viewer.

Introduction

I'm a sophomore at Lang, from Greenwich CT. I'm an avid user of all forms of media. TV, movies, the internet, I use it all. I don't go to any specific blogs on a regular basis, but I do visit the site Digg.com as well as VWVortex.com (for VW/Audi news) regularly. Digg features posts from blogs all over the internet and allows users to vote on them. My favorite topics include anything tech related, gaming, and offbeat news.
According to Gitlin, I would classify myself as part ironist, secessionist, and abolitionist. I'm critical of the media and recognize a lot of the crap that gets fed to us, but I still watch it and enjoy it for what it's worth. I mentioned the newest version of American Gladiators in class. I know it's total trash TV, but that doesn't stop me from watching it but not taking it too seriously. On the other hand, sometimes I actively avoid certain media and even try to convince others to do the same. For example, the recent coverage of Brittany Spear's meltdown really bothered me. Why was it headline news on CNN? Every time I saw my sister and mother watching a story on her I went and turned off the TV. In this respect, the abolitionist/secessionist in me comes out, but there are some gossipy stories in the news that I probably enjoy as much as they do the stories about Brittany Spears.