What I think McLuhan meant by “the medium is the message” is that you can say the same thing on different mediums but depending on what medium is used, the message is conveyed differently. Therefore, the medium actually is the message because what is being said is interpreted depending on the media being used. An example that McLuhan uses in his article is that of the election of John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Originally, while Nixon was heard on the radio his voice gave off an idea of superiority. However, when switching to TV, his public persona changed and he began to give off the image of a ‘phony’, or “something that resonates wrong, that doesn’t ring true.” This example illustrates that the way a person is perceived relies heavily on how that person is portrayed to the public depending on the media used.
Another example of a message changing due to the media in effect is the example of the Orson Well’s experiment with The War of the Worlds. Basically, McLuhan states that the public only believed that this radio announcement as true because it was on the radio. Had this been a television event, then it would not have been as believable because of the images used and the way the information is presented.
Federman thinks that people interpret the fact that the meaning of what is being said does in fact rely on the medium being used but what is important to remember is that the information being presented still matters and should be considered as important. He goes on to say that when a new innovation arrives we are always skeptical about how it will change our lives and it is at that time that we look back and realize what kind of affect the old technology had on society to begin with. He also states that all these new technologies that people find themselves experiencing and learning to incorporate into their everyday lives are slowly influencing and changing the way people live their daily lives as well as influence the way people interact with one another and how society exists amongst itself. Though it is one hundred percent possible to live and function without these inventions of technology being introduced into society, people become dependent on these items and find it almost impossible to cope without them.
Whatever innovations are introduced into society, people tend to make it a part of their everyday lives and need them to function throughout their day. Society becomes needy on these items in order to function throughout their days and communicate with others. People begin to forget how lives were led before these inventions and look back on the past with amazement that people were able to function. It is with this statement the following question demands to be addressed: “Do we determine the uses of technology or does technology determine the patterns and development of our culture and society?” I conclude that we do not determine the uses of technology but rather technology determines us. We are what we own. What people have defines them in their place in society. It is this reason that people purchase extravagant phones with a million functions that no one really needs, just wants. Technology also changes the way people interact with each other. I, personally, do not have texting. Upon discovering this, I find that people generally have two separate reactions. They either exclaim, “How do you live? How do you manage to go through your day without it?!” Or they tell me that I am a lucky person because this means I am not as available 24/7. Though I am not particularly sad that I don’t have texting, I often find myself in a disadvantage when it comes to communication with others. I find that it is generally assumed that everyone has texting and so I am, as a result, sent texts that I, of course, never receive. Many of these texts include important information and because I have not “kept up” with the changing ways of communication in society today, I have found myself at a disadvantage and distant in today’s realm of communication. It’s almost as if you don’t keep up with changing forms of communication, you are left out and people no longer communicate with you.
McLuhan, as well as Federman, felt that the new electronic media is changing the way people think, act, and feel. McLuhan suspected that the current technological environment, when reminisced upon, will be seen as a major turning point in the history of communication. Not only is it astonishing how people came to include these new forms of communicating in their everyday lives, but also how important these new ways of communicating has become. The way people use technology today has become almost like a crutch for many people and the amount is steadily increasing. McLuhan dubs this Technological Determinism and found that the evolution of technology has a direct correlation to the way people communicate in existing societies. McLuhan thought it seemed as if each new form of technology acted almost like an extension of every human being rather than a handy tool. I agree with Marshall McLuhan and think that as long as people desire to find quicker and easier ways to communicate with each other, this phenomenon of technology becoming the crutch of society will continue to remain present as a necessary means of human existence.
Works Cited
Federman, Mark. "What is the Meaning of The Medium is the Message?" UTORweb. 20 Apr. 2009
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Radio. Communication in History. 5th ed. 234-40.
