The media is part of the message

“The medium is the message” was said by Marshall McLuhan in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man published in 1964. The meaning behind the phrase is that the medium is the influential element, not it’s content. Basically he’s saying that it’s not what you say, but how you say it. However, I think that the medium may actually influence the interpretation and effect of the message. Viewing the Sisistine Chappel in Rome may have a significantly greater impact versus looking at it on the internet. You would probably appreciate it more if someone drove to your house to personally thank you for something instead of sending an email.

''By knowing how technology shapes our environment,'' McLuhan once told an interviewer, ''we can transcend its absolutely determining power. Far from regarding technological change as inevitable, I insist that if we understand its components we can turn it off any time we choose. Short of turning it off, there are lots of moderate controls conceivable.''⁽¹⁾ Technically that is true but how realistic is it? Why go buy a newspaper when you can instantly read it on the internet? I would bet that kids these days would much rather go see a movie than read the book on which it’s based.

While on the most part I agree with McLuhan I can’t help but think of what would happen if the world was limited to a single medium, such as computers. Would his theory still apply?

I agree with Elissa that what we do with the technology we develop is as important, and shapes history just as much as the technology itself.

1. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/11/02/home/mcluhan-obit.html