In this article McLuhan breaks down what the message of media really is. He argues that for the “message” of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. It is the “medium” or the “machine” that creates the message and not the context. That it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. It’s a “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” controversy.
“It is only today that industries have become aware of the various kinds of business in which they are engaged. When IBM discovered that it was not in the business of making office equipment or business machines, but that it was in the business of processing information, then it began to navigate with clear vision.” While this may be true, this was just a realization for IBM, they needed to refocus as a company, it has nothing to do with defining the message of media. I tend to disagree with McLuhan and his understanding of new media.
The dictionary defines Media as “the main means of mass communication (especially television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively”, and defines Message as “a verbal, written, or recorded communication sent to or left for a recipient who cannot be contacted directly.” With this understanding, we are led to believe McLuhan thinks the machine in which we use to communicate is actually what the message is and not the context. I disagree with this entirely. The sole purpose of the media is what we are saying and the driving factor behind it. It is not the means in which we communicate, it is what we are saying. We must realize that without a need to communicate there would be no media, no tv, or radio or computer. The media is not the message, the message is the media.
Haley Campbell 