McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message" is precisely that

   

In an attempt to archive some academic papers I've written over the past few years (relying on the hard drives of sometimes faulty PCs has left me tired and frustrated), I continue to occasionally upload some of my old work to this site. Here is one I wrote for a class on Understanding Media Studies in the Fall of 2010.

     As redundant and head-scratching as it may at first appear, Marshall McLuhan's prolific essay, “The Medium Is The Message”, from his 1964 book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, attempts to clarify the key importance of technology in the modern day world. First considered radical and misguided, McLuhan's critical take is now understood to have been a strong presence in the evolution of media theory. The Canadian-born writer believed that the core of any mode of distribution (television, transportation, etc.) was the thing that mattered most; the term “content is key” is a rather popular one, but one which goes against what McLuhan believed. 

 

      One of the first examples McLuhan uses is that of the light bulb, a medium most would consider to prosper without a message. The bulb distributes light and is done with. Scientists may analyze the light's distributing techniques, but would sociologists? A light bulb allows people to observe a given space at night (and underground) in the absence of natural light, a luxury they previously – pre-Thomas Edison – were unable to take advantage of. Does it matter what they do with the light bulb when it's on and running or does the constructionof the bulb possess more significance? McLuhan uses this as a starting example, a practical and compact one that convincingly states his case.

 

      Going further, McLuhan uses another significant example: modes of transportation such as locomotives and airplanes. When traditionally thinking about industrialized ways of travel, consumers are more concerned with the “where” than the “what”, the destination and amount of time it takes to get there rather than the compartment they are contained in while on their way. 

     And yet, the physical being of an airplane is fascinating, not because of where it is going but due to the fact that it can go anywhere at all. Here is a man-made invention able to rise up into the sky and move at astounding speeds to wherever its pilot's heart desires. The birth of these inventions has more to do with architectural creativity than mass marketed travel packages and vacation hot spots. They are inventions made for convenience as well as commerce – they have also pushed us to create complex standardized forms of time.

      With these cases noted and accepted, McLuhan moves on to his primary area of focus: the 1950s apparatus known as the television set. Quoting dialogue from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (“But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It speaks, and yet says nothing”), McLuhan writes, “some might quibble about whether or not he was referring to TV in these familiar lines.” As we are well aware, there are thousands of articles written annually about television programs, scripted dramas, comedies, documentaries, news programs, ad nauseum. These writers are concerned with the content put out through the television's square or rectangular screen and less with the TV itself. McLuhan, over and over again, reiterates his main point: the medium is the message. Why worry about the TV shows when we wouldn't have them without a television to start off with? That is perhaps more intriguing than the content that comes out of it.

      McLuhan is also concerned that news programming, in its very nature a mass communication model, is creating a shared cultural experience (i.e., everyone sees the Vietnam War coverage from the same source). Thanks to the “boob tube”, there is a severe lack of individual perception. One may be quick to interrupt and say, “but hey, thanks to cable and their left wing and right wing news stations, everyone has some sort of outlet in which to hear things from different viewpoints.” Maybe, or do people search for and view the news programs in which they find themselves in agreement with? Fox News' mischievous royal jester, Glenn Beck, likes to claim he is a commentator, not a journalist. But what can one comment on without reporting what it is they are talking about first? All of this second guessing due to an invention originally designed to do more harm than good (but maybe.....). If we are open to receiving messages, as we as television owners admittedly are, then we must be aware of their intentions and to where and from whom they are coming.