![The Health Care Industry Apocalypse In "Repo Men"](http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/03/126x100_repomenonthejob.jpg "The Health Care Industry Apocalypse In "Repo Men"")
Enter your username and password.
In my seminar college discussions of McLuhan, we argued about TV being hot or cool for weeks. I think the advent of cable changed the game and drove TV into the "hot" realm - but you could also argue that with TV, the content present on the media is too varied for the medium to be defined simply. Which is why arguing about McLuhan is so much fun, and because his statement that "the medium is the message" is a maddening oversimplification of his theories, I always tried to read it as "how we perceive and understand the message is limited, and enhanced, by its medium."
Reply
@Soupytwist: "I think the advent of cable changed the game and drove TV into the "hot" realm - but you could also argue that with TV, the content present on the media is too varied for the medium to be defined simply."
This is very true.. the advent of movies on television definitely blurred the landscape and made the medium more complex. TV used to be a much stricter display and delivery of a certain kind of content (that which we think of as television: sitcoms, crime dramas, those specific formats created for the television delivery system and medium)
I also find it amusing that tv grew out of radio, with regard to early content: they didn't yet know what to do with this new medium, so they would re-work radio plays in a television context. It was early performers (borrowed over from radio), like Milton Berle, that began to shape and sculpt with the new medium. Ernie Kovacs also comes to mind. Reply
This is very true.. the advent of movies on television definitely blurred the landscape and made the medium more complex. TV used to be a much stricter display and delivery of a certain kind of content (that which we think of as television: sitcoms, crime dramas, those specific formats created for the television delivery system and medium)
I also find it amusing that tv grew out of radio, with regard to early content: they didn't yet know what to do with this new medium, so they would re-work radio plays in a television context. It was early performers (borrowed over from radio), like Milton Berle, that began to shape and sculpt with the new medium. Ernie Kovacs also comes to mind. Reply
@Soupytwist: It's more accurate to say something like "the medium conveys information and meaning directly in its very structure and in its impact on us, apart from the content of the medium".
Reply
@Pope John Peeps II: The distinction that we're making is the same, the medium is not LITERALLY the message but you can't ignore the medium in the discussion of the message/content.
The failure of a lot of audience members/readers to recognize that really bums me out sometimes. There is a huge difference, for example, between a novel and a film adaptation, but too often the comparison happens (which was better?) and not the discussion of the content/message as delivered in the medium.
Unless one enjoys reading pretentious or academic criticism, which I don't.
Wow. Got kinda ranty there. Sorry! Reply
The failure of a lot of audience members/readers to recognize that really bums me out sometimes. There is a huge difference, for example, between a novel and a film adaptation, but too often the comparison happens (which was better?) and not the discussion of the content/message as delivered in the medium.
Unless one enjoys reading pretentious or academic criticism, which I don't.
Wow. Got kinda ranty there. Sorry! Reply
@Dr.ClaytonForrester: You could also argue that those early TV formulas stolen from radio are still going strong in current TV sitcoms. The fat husband/hot wife, the stupid neighbor/relative, the loyal companion - just slap 'em on screen and watch it work.
Reply
@Soupytwist: Well, we're not exactly saying the same thing. Yes the medium affects the content of the message, but more importantly the medium does this because it itself is encoded with certain information. This is the origin of the hot/cold division, for example, and why certain messages are more effective in hot media than cold ones.
Mcluhan once said that a lightbulb was a device of pure information carrying. That by its very nature and existence, it transmits a fundamental change in the human consciousness and our conscious process. Thus "the medium is the message". Reply
Mcluhan once said that a lightbulb was a device of pure information carrying. That by its very nature and existence, it transmits a fundamental change in the human consciousness and our conscious process. Thus "the medium is the message". Reply
@Pope John Peeps II: McLuhan simplifies things (the light bulb example) to get people thinking about what the media means separately from its designed purpose. Now that we have examined that, how does the new understanding impact the designed purpose? That, to me, is the core of McLuhan: we cannot engage with anything in a meaningful way until we examine how it is coming to us.
McLuhan also describes the message/content as being like a Russian doll: the content of writing is speech, the content of speech is thought, thought is nonverbal and is the smallest doll of all, small enough to be insignificant. This idea is intriguing, but completely disregards the creator of the content. Something he consistently does.
I think for people who haven't read (or have tried to read and given up on) McLuhan, or find McLuhan's assumptions about human physiology and perception suspect, they might get a bigger kick out of James Carey or Walter Ong.
I have to admit, after I read Ong's Orality & Literacy and Carey's Communication As Culture, I had a much better understanding of what McLuhan was attempting to communicate, what he was building towards as a school of thought.
This many years later and I am still on the fence about McLuhan! I have no reservations about Carey, though. That man was pure genius. Reply
McLuhan also describes the message/content as being like a Russian doll: the content of writing is speech, the content of speech is thought, thought is nonverbal and is the smallest doll of all, small enough to be insignificant. This idea is intriguing, but completely disregards the creator of the content. Something he consistently does.
I think for people who haven't read (or have tried to read and given up on) McLuhan, or find McLuhan's assumptions about human physiology and perception suspect, they might get a bigger kick out of James Carey or Walter Ong.
I have to admit, after I read Ong's Orality & Literacy and Carey's Communication As Culture, I had a much better understanding of what McLuhan was attempting to communicate, what he was building towards as a school of thought.
This many years later and I am still on the fence about McLuhan! I have no reservations about Carey, though. That man was pure genius. Reply
@Soupytwist: You make good points, but I think you miss a small aspect of McLuhan's work. The "designed purpose" of a medium is not the actual purpose of a medium. It's not really that we should think about how something's getting to us in order that we can deal with the something, but it's that we should deal with the effect the "how" is creating.
You're right that he somewhat disregards the creator of content, and to me that seems entirely appropriate because his purpose is not to delve into content but to examine structure... Most of what he does in Understanding Media delves into the unconscious change of scale and speed brought on by new media, and their concomitant effects on the human psyche. His definition of the word "message" is not the content of the actual medium, what we would today call the message of something, but is in fact the effect that medium has on the structure of our consciousness, or the pace of our lives. It's a weird use of an accepted word.
I don't recall that nesting doll quote from my readings, and to be honest, it sounds funny to my ears. Are you certain McLuhan would have said that thought itself is insignificant? I don't see that as something he would have written. Reply
You're right that he somewhat disregards the creator of content, and to me that seems entirely appropriate because his purpose is not to delve into content but to examine structure... Most of what he does in Understanding Media delves into the unconscious change of scale and speed brought on by new media, and their concomitant effects on the human psyche. His definition of the word "message" is not the content of the actual medium, what we would today call the message of something, but is in fact the effect that medium has on the structure of our consciousness, or the pace of our lives. It's a weird use of an accepted word.
I don't recall that nesting doll quote from my readings, and to be honest, it sounds funny to my ears. Are you certain McLuhan would have said that thought itself is insignificant? I don't see that as something he would have written. Reply
@Pope John Peeps II: You misunderstand me, I use the phrase "designed purpose" to intentionally call out what thing was meant to do vs. how it actually does (the "How" of McLuhan). Bad writing.
You don't recall the Russian doll bit because that's my interpretation of his statements - I paraphrased "the content of writing is speech" bit - forgive the lack of quotable materials at my disposal. I do recall quite clearly that he referred to thought as "nonverbal" and without content. The medium is its own content/message. Thought is contentless and therefore not media.
You and I are, in fact, using the "message" in the same way that McLuhan means it...
I don't misunderstand McLuhan, I've just internalized a lot of it and so I use my own words to describe his work. In other words: I learned it.
And, like I said at the very beginning, he's a lot of fun to discuss and argue over. But, ultimately, he isn't quite all there, and so I remain skeptical about his conclusions. Reply
You don't recall the Russian doll bit because that's my interpretation of his statements - I paraphrased "the content of writing is speech" bit - forgive the lack of quotable materials at my disposal. I do recall quite clearly that he referred to thought as "nonverbal" and without content. The medium is its own content/message. Thought is contentless and therefore not media.
You and I are, in fact, using the "message" in the same way that McLuhan means it...
I don't misunderstand McLuhan, I've just internalized a lot of it and so I use my own words to describe his work. In other words: I learned it.
And, like I said at the very beginning, he's a lot of fun to discuss and argue over. But, ultimately, he isn't quite all there, and so I remain skeptical about his conclusions. Reply