In BBC’s Medium is the Message, Marshall McLuhan offers a very interesting perspective on how what we say is affected by the medium in which it is told.
Marshall McLuhan, a philosopher of communication theory, coined the phrase “Medium is the Message” when writing a book about the topic. This phrase is regarded as a “paradoxical statement” because the message was seen as merely just the content. McLuhan chose to focus specifically on the medium, taking a different approach than normal. He believed it was the form, the medium, that changes what is communicated. Taking on this specific viewpoint, McLuhan made the claim that “throughout history, what has been communicated has been less important than the medium through which it is communicated.”
The most intriguing part of this video was the discussion of oral culture vs. print-based culture. In earlier history, oral culture was the primary way of communicating information and the ear was considered the primary sensory organ. As technology advanced, print became the norm and encouraged the use of one’s visual senses. Once this shift was made in communication technology, the primary sensory organ became one’s eyes. Following this advancement, television was introduced which combined both one’s visual and auditory senses and encouraged unified participation amongst viewers. It is often said that McLuhan’s discussion of television as a “global village” foreshadowed the Internet.
It is interesting to ponder what McLuhan may think of our communication technology today and how social media has affected the medium through which we communicate. Does he believe it unites us like the television once did? Or, does he think social media distorts the information we try and communicate? His research has led to a very interesting perspective and I think he is very valid in his argument. In agreement with McLuhan, I do believe that the gravity and depth of the content can changed based on the medium it’s displayed in, and I think the discussion of one’s senses is also very important to consider. He mentions one’s oral, auditory, and visual senses to display how one’s understanding of a story or piece of information can change drastically based on how it’s presented to them. It is also fascinating to expand on McLuhan’s mention of a “global village.” Presently, people bond over shared stories, Instagram posts, Twitter feeds, TikTok’s, etc. and it is important to consider how one’s perspective/opinion may change based on the influence of a shared opinion.
It’s really interesting to see how primary sensory organs changed as technology (the medium) changed. It really shows how prominent a medium is in one’s lifetime and how much of an influence it can have. I think you pose a great question, asking what McLuhan may think of our communication technology today in regards to social media. In my opinion, I think it’s definitely distorting the information through which we communicate because I think it can create false ideas of reality based on tools people use like editing apps or even just the amount of time people spend on it. However, I also wonder what McLuhan would say and if he’d agree or not.
Your point about social media distorting information is a good and common one that I agree with, but I think it is worth considering, based on the reading “How the Medium Shapes the Message”, that social media also allows us to reduce information distortion because it gives us a way to properly think about what we say, rather than maybe accidentally miscommunicating information during a live conversation. Additionally, it allows for an easier way to go back and correct what you said, which is a harder thing to do in person and often requires more bravery due to the higher level of confrontation.
I found your reference to people bonding over social media very relatable, as I have noticed that as social media is becoming more prominent, many people are talking about similar issues/trends. I wonder if this fits the idea of the media being the message, because social media use is often times mindless and used for entertainment rather than for actually gaining knowledge or spreading important information (obviously not all of the time). With this being said, for people who use social media as their primary technology use, are they getting different messages than someone who might watch the news, for example?
I found it very interesting how in both your response and the video, McLuhan argues that our biology (in regards to our sensory organs) actually evolve alongside technology. This theory promotes his, and your message, that it is really the medium that is significant rather than the actual content of the message. With technology becoming increasingly invasive in our lives, our senses are being altered and influenced to agree with the medium in which messages are sent. Another thing I found compelling about your argument was the transition of oral to print mediums. This caused the sensory primary organ to be the eyes. Therefore, technological advancements can lead to biological changes.
I think your reference to social media is very important to this McLuhan’s beliefs about the importance of the medium in our society today. For the past year, we’ve seen social media blow up as a source of news and the controversies regarding this change. Most people find that social media isn’t an accurate source for news and important information while others argue it is the same as any other news outlet or source. However, just like any news, it’s hard to detect what is truthful and accurate on social media. Therefore, we have an overwhelming amount of information at our disposal yet we’re unable to sift through what is true and what isn’t. I believe that the messages on social media can be truthful or accurate however it’s up to you to keep researching and digging to find out the truth. I think that goes for the same with other mediums because in this day and age it’s almost impossible to gage what is true and what isn’t… which I think is the bigger societal issue we’re facing.