In “The Medium is the Message”, Marshall McLuhan argues that the personal and social consequences of mediums outweigh the effects of messages themselves. In simple terms, McLuhan argues that the way that information is presented is significantly more important than the information itself.
McLuhan shows, for example, that the effect of electric light is more significant than the use of the light itself. According to McLuhan, it doesn’t matter if the light is illuminating a baseball stadium or guiding a brain surgeon. Instead, it is the medium of light that has the effect. “The message of the electric light is like the message of electric power in industry, totally radical, pervasive, and decentralized. For electric light and power are separate from their uses, yet they eliminate time and space factors in human association exactly as do radio, telegraph, telephone, and TV, creating involvement in depth,” he writes. McLuhan provides many more examples, such as how the effects of transportation on society are more significant than the technology itself. “The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure,” he wrote. He says IBM moves information, not office equipment, and that automation created both job loss and new roles, which is more significant than anything that automated machines are creating.
I do agree that as a society we often neglect the effects of mediums in our lives, but I worry that by focusing too closely on the medium, we may neglect the significane of the message entirely. I think our reality lies somewhere between McLuhan’s argument that the medium is the message and General David Sarnoff’s statement: “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.” Using Twitter as a modern example, I would agree with McLuhan that the effects of the technology—the quick dissemination of information, community building and educational conversations—are more significant than the impact that any one Tweet could have. However, I would also agree with Sarnoff, that the way Twitter is used should not be ignored. I think most people would agree that when Twitter is used to spread useful, accurate public information, it is “good”, and when it is used to spread hateful messages it is “bad”. Both uses exist on the medium of Twitter and are a product of how humans interact with the technology.
Alana, I read this article as well and I really appreciated your take. I felt the same way that McLuhan focused a bit too much on the medium and not enough on the actual message, which is still important. I felt McLuhan used abstract examples, which I’m unsure can apply to every single situation in our nuanced world of social media. His take, while I believe makes sense and is still relevant today, is very black and white.
Alana, you bring up some really great points. I agree with you that it is important to focus on both the medium and the message. The way that a message is communicated (the medium) and what is being communicated (the message) both matter because they each can have impacts on individuals and our society. It would be wrong to not consider the message in a given scenario because that is what is being communicated to individuals. Messages are all around us and alter how we think, act, and feel, so it is important to acknowledge them as such. Furthermore, the example of Twitter that you provided is helpful and illuminates the broad impact of the platform as a communication tool. Overall, I do think it is important to monitor the environment of platforms because negative messages can derail the impact of the communication channel quickly.
I completely agree with your statement regarding the need for a balance between the medium and the message. Twitter and other forms of social media would not be the same if it were not for the conversations that can be had with others on these platforms. I think that many people around the world would be living in the dark if it were not for the conversations that are had on social media. Personally I do not watch the news so often times Instagram is how I learn about current events. In these cases I believe that the platform is just as important. But I understand how in some cases the content is what is most important and needs to be prioritized.