I agree with McLuhan that the format of a medium determines the content of the message. In order to have the television be successful you start with the television. The format would be a screen that you stare at. In order to have that screen capture interest, you have to have content that is interesting. In this way format determines what kind of content you have to have. The format of the TV also allows for a lot of content to be accessed, that may not be able to be accessed through another medium. While i agree with the fact that the format determines that content of the message, i do not know if I agree with the idea of television being a "cool" medium.
The fact that the radio was suggested as a hot medium as compared to TV's cool distinction doesn't make sense to me. While TV may stimulate more senses in being able to see and listen at the same time, the content can be just as differentiated in commercial play. Outside of commercials, TV shows are mostly based on one topic. This is the same as radio. I don't really understand the standing as TV being a cool medium.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
jrmcomm105,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this post. I also agree with McLuhan's notion of the medium is the message. I found your reasoning very similar to mine. My whole argument is basically you have the context, the sender, and the receiver. The message is the channel in which the receiver interprets that context from the sender. It's a valid argument McLuhan makes in terms of the medium is the message. However, I believe that television is a cool medium as well. From my experience, television leaves many contexts sent undefined so the viewers are open to interpret them. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer in this discussion, but I agree with the notion of a cool medium as well.