The Medium Vs. The Message
In 1964, Marshall McLuhan, an educator, philosopher, and scholar, published a book entitled ‘Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”. McLuhan's theory was that a medium affects society by the characteristics of the medium itself, rather than the content that it delivers. This theory has been popularly quoted as “the medium is the message” (Hirsch, 2002). Since this revelation, McLuhan’s notions have been both embraced and rejected, mainly surrounding the idea of whether television and video games (and particularly the violence involved), actually affect youth in a significant way.
When referring to mass-media and communication, the conventional meanings for ‘medium’ involve radio, television, print, and Internet. Therefore, the conventional understanding of ‘message’ is the content or information supplied (Federman 2004). After clarifying definitions, it is easier to explain McLuhan’s beliefs that the “content of the medium blinds us to the charatcer of the medium”, and that, “it is the character of the medium that is its potency”. (McLuhan, 1964).
Marshall McLuhan saw every medium as an extension of some human faculty, and thus believed each form of communication exaggerated that particular sense. In his words,
"The wheel...is an extension of the foot. The book is an extension of the eye... Clothing, an extension of the skin...Electric circuitry, an extension of the central nervous system" (McLuhan as cited by Wimbley, 2000).
Therefore, it was his perception that the predominate media in society will be responsible for how human beings perceive the world.
McLuhan divided media into literal temperature categories to define how much interaction they had with the user of the medium. He stated that,
“Hot media (radio, photography, cinema) are more full of information and allow less involvement of the user; cool media (telephone, cartoons, television) are less full of information and allow much greater sensory participation by the user” (Hirst & Harrison, 2007: 54 - 55).
When looking at the ‘cool’ medium of television, McLuhan believed that it provided the viewer with only a rough sketch through the illumination of tiny dots and perceptually, the viewer must fill in the spaces between these visual dots. This would allow more interpretive thinking space for the audience, leading it to have a greater impact on the viewer. (Hirst, 2007). Particularly with telephone and TV, he supposed that it was not so much the message, but the sender that is “sent” (McLuhan Associates, 1986). For example, when talking to someone on the telephone, you are not so much impacted by what they are telling you, but the fact that they are talking to you and that is what you are hearing. He also referred to television as ‘audio-tactile’ rather than a visual medium and thought television’s effects on the central nervous system could be seen in today’s young i.e. the first television generation. McLuhan diagnosed that this so-called generation gap was neurological; a simple discrepancy between a print-bred generation and its audio-tactile offspring (Wolfe, 2004).
This theory of audio-tactility raises fears of possible illiteracy in youth, an idea which is criticized by Dr Colby, a noted child psychologist. She maintains that there is no evidence that television displaces reading or other constructive leisure activities and that some programming can actually complement and encourage it. The development of positive pre-reading skills is also predicted by watching educational TV in the preschool years (Colby, 1998).
When specifically looking at violence in the media, Karen Sternheimer, sociologist and media scholar, doesn’t argue mass media has no influence on youth, but rather that the influence is far more complex, individual and varied. She analyzes the psychological tests applied to media influences and finds their reliance on artificial settings renders such studies insufficient to support the conclusion that the media causes youths to act badly. Sternheimer is a firm believer that the content of the medium is not an issue;
“Laboratory research techniques which show that exposure to violent television programs, films and video games caused increased aggressive behaviours by youthful viewers found identical for mild programs such as Sesame Street” (Sternheimer as cited by Males, 2004).
Consequently, one can be confident in saying that in this case, the message that is being provided is of little importance to the viewer.
Overwhelming evidence provided by news articles and dedicated websites show that far too much emphasis is placed on what programs children are viewing, whereas according to McLuhan, it should be of concern as to how they are viewing them. Studies have proved that common forms of media among youth such as computer programs and TV editing techniques tend to compress, extend, and distort normal time/space relationships, a critically important element in the creation and use of effective long-term memories (Noel, J). On the other hand, a Virginia Polytechnic Institute study demonstrated a positive aspect of embracing ‘cool’ media by showing how playing videogames improves women's spatial awareness, an area where women often do worse than men. (Cooke, 2007).
When Marshall McLuhan shared his theories with the world, he hoped that people would begin to focus on what the actual media was doing to our brains, rather than the message that it was carrying. It seems many people still choose to dismiss this idea, still particularly adamant that a violent television program will gravely affect the person watching it, even though research has deemed this to be significantly false. However, the main point represented by both parties is that no matter what ‘message’ it delivers, television and related mediums will undoubtedly have an affect on youth and society; even though the question of whether this general affect is good or bad still remains unsolved.
In 1964, Marshall McLuhan, an educator, philosopher, and scholar, published a book entitled ‘Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man”. McLuhan's theory was that a medium affects society by the characteristics of the medium itself, rather than the content that it delivers. This theory has been popularly quoted as “the medium is the message” (Hirsch, 2002). Since this revelation, McLuhan’s notions have been both embraced and rejected, mainly surrounding the idea of whether television and video games (and particularly the violence involved), actually affect youth in a significant way.
When referring to mass-media and communication, the conventional meanings for ‘medium’ involve radio, television, print, and Internet. Therefore, the conventional understanding of ‘message’ is the content or information supplied (Federman 2004). After clarifying definitions, it is easier to explain McLuhan’s beliefs that the “content of the medium blinds us to the charatcer of the medium”, and that, “it is the character of the medium that is its potency”. (McLuhan, 1964).
Marshall McLuhan saw every medium as an extension of some human faculty, and thus believed each form of communication exaggerated that particular sense. In his words,
"The wheel...is an extension of the foot. The book is an extension of the eye... Clothing, an extension of the skin...Electric circuitry, an extension of the central nervous system" (McLuhan as cited by Wimbley, 2000).
Therefore, it was his perception that the predominate media in society will be responsible for how human beings perceive the world.
McLuhan divided media into literal temperature categories to define how much interaction they had with the user of the medium. He stated that,
“Hot media (radio, photography, cinema) are more full of information and allow less involvement of the user; cool media (telephone, cartoons, television) are less full of information and allow much greater sensory participation by the user” (Hirst & Harrison, 2007: 54 - 55).
When looking at the ‘cool’ medium of television, McLuhan believed that it provided the viewer with only a rough sketch through the illumination of tiny dots and perceptually, the viewer must fill in the spaces between these visual dots. This would allow more interpretive thinking space for the audience, leading it to have a greater impact on the viewer. (Hirst, 2007). Particularly with telephone and TV, he supposed that it was not so much the message, but the sender that is “sent” (McLuhan Associates, 1986). For example, when talking to someone on the telephone, you are not so much impacted by what they are telling you, but the fact that they are talking to you and that is what you are hearing. He also referred to television as ‘audio-tactile’ rather than a visual medium and thought television’s effects on the central nervous system could be seen in today’s young i.e. the first television generation. McLuhan diagnosed that this so-called generation gap was neurological; a simple discrepancy between a print-bred generation and its audio-tactile offspring (Wolfe, 2004).
This theory of audio-tactility raises fears of possible illiteracy in youth, an idea which is criticized by Dr Colby, a noted child psychologist. She maintains that there is no evidence that television displaces reading or other constructive leisure activities and that some programming can actually complement and encourage it. The development of positive pre-reading skills is also predicted by watching educational TV in the preschool years (Colby, 1998).
When specifically looking at violence in the media, Karen Sternheimer, sociologist and media scholar, doesn’t argue mass media has no influence on youth, but rather that the influence is far more complex, individual and varied. She analyzes the psychological tests applied to media influences and finds their reliance on artificial settings renders such studies insufficient to support the conclusion that the media causes youths to act badly. Sternheimer is a firm believer that the content of the medium is not an issue;
“Laboratory research techniques which show that exposure to violent television programs, films and video games caused increased aggressive behaviours by youthful viewers found identical for mild programs such as Sesame Street” (Sternheimer as cited by Males, 2004).
Consequently, one can be confident in saying that in this case, the message that is being provided is of little importance to the viewer.
Overwhelming evidence provided by news articles and dedicated websites show that far too much emphasis is placed on what programs children are viewing, whereas according to McLuhan, it should be of concern as to how they are viewing them. Studies have proved that common forms of media among youth such as computer programs and TV editing techniques tend to compress, extend, and distort normal time/space relationships, a critically important element in the creation and use of effective long-term memories (Noel, J). On the other hand, a Virginia Polytechnic Institute study demonstrated a positive aspect of embracing ‘cool’ media by showing how playing videogames improves women's spatial awareness, an area where women often do worse than men. (Cooke, 2007).
When Marshall McLuhan shared his theories with the world, he hoped that people would begin to focus on what the actual media was doing to our brains, rather than the message that it was carrying. It seems many people still choose to dismiss this idea, still particularly adamant that a violent television program will gravely affect the person watching it, even though research has deemed this to be significantly false. However, the main point represented by both parties is that no matter what ‘message’ it delivers, television and related mediums will undoubtedly have an affect on youth and society; even though the question of whether this general affect is good or bad still remains unsolved.
LIST OF REFERENCES
Journal Articles/Books
Hirst, M. & Harrison, J. (2007). Communication and New Media. Oxford University Press; Australia.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York.
Males, M. (2004). ‘It’s not the media: The truth about pop culture’s influence on children’. Teacher Librarian. 31(3):34
Colby, D. (1998). ‘TV: Friend or foe’. Businessline. 28(4):1
Wolfe, T. (2004). ‘McLuhan’s New World’. The Wilson Quarterly. 28(2):18-26
Websites
Noel, J. (2003). ‘Effects of Media on Early Brain Development’ www.bcfilmclass.com/publications/emebd2003.pdf+media+affect+brain&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au (accessed 5 May 2007).
Cooke, P. (2007). ‘The Media Effect On Your Brain: Is It Positive Or Negative?’
http://www.philcooke.com/node/980 (accessed 6 May 2007)
McLuhan Associates. (1986). ‘If It Works, It’s Obsolete’.
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/poster.html (accessed 9 May 2007)
Hirsch, E. (2002). The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. http://www.bartleby.com/59/17/mediumisthem.html (accessed 9 May 2007)
Wimbley, J. (2000). ‘McLuhan’s Medium is the Message’. http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Speech/rccs/theory31.htm (accessed 9 May 2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment