Is The Medium Really The Message?
Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian communications and media theorist and philosopher, famously declared “the medium is the message” in his pioneering 1964 work Understanding Media. Recently, we’ve been experimenting with and exposing ourselves to various methods of conveying a message, whether through our zine-making and all the collage-esque work we did in creating it, reading primary and secondary sources, or watching a documentary that gave us a glimpse into a family story through home footage. Each has the potential to affect us in different ways, and we should reflect on not only why the story is being told, but how it's being told.
Storytelling predates the use of written language. Thousands of years ago, humans painted pictures to communicate their ideas and experiences. And now, with the dawn of a technology-driven era, there exist more possibilities than ever for innovation and new ways to engage and inform an audience.
Humans have always been resourceful in finding new methods of engaging other people, but how effective are the basics? Is a picture really worth a thousand words? How does the way a story (fictional or not) is communicated affect how we understand it? What are the benefits and/or detriments of using one medium over another and how should prospective storytellers choose which to use? How important is the way a story/history is told to its ultimate message?
I think that, in some ways, the new mediums that people are using to tell stories/discuss current events etc has been instrumental in both allowing more people to put information out into the world and enabling that information to reach a wider audience. While online platforms have their fair share of problems (poor fact checking, bots, etc), I've been thinking about how events like the Rodney King Rebellion would have been received differently if social media had been around at the time. Because with events like the demonstrations in Ferguson, people who were part of BLM or organizing the event were able to shift the narrative and not allow largely white-run news organizations to dominate the headlines. Ferguson seemed to be received differently than things like the Rodney King riots because people could use social media/other online media platforms to better show the country why the protests were taking place.
ReplyDeleteI think that different forms of media are, more generally, helping more stories being told, allowing us to break away from dominant narratives. However, it's probably easier to discredit online sources (for better or worse) rather than established print media, so it's definitely not a perfect system.
The medium of a story is important in order to convey a message or persuade an audience. There has always been a debate about books vs movies. For example, one could argue that books allow for imagination since they provide imagery through words, while on the other hand, movies simply provide the images and audio through videos/pictures. However, even though books allow one to visualize freely, movies can also create a world that a reader of a book might not visualize. The way a story is communicated largely depends on the audience as well. However, both of these means, (words and pictures) can always be up for interpretation. Moreover, pictures can be more attractive than words. Therefore, pictures might be able to convey a larger message than words can. In addition, I feel that pictures can have multiple different messages because of an audience’s experience/perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think that mediums such as social media can be extremely effective in spreading a message to a large community, while allowing the community to access it for free. Other mediums such as books and movies cost money to read/watch, while social media can allow a wider audience to see the message. I agree with Emma that social media also allows the us to shift away from the dominate narrative. I found it interesting to learn about how there was no largely African American coverage of the watts riots, allowing white run newspapers to completely change the outlook of the riots. However, with social media, more voices can be heard, and fake news would be harder to create.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the medium of a story definitely impacts how the audience receives it. However, different mediums affect people in different ways. Some might prefer to learn about something through pictures, others might prefer a silent film or a podcast, and some might like to be able to flip through a zine to gather information… It really varies from person to person. Like others have said, the fact that there are so many ways to communicate a story disallows there to be a dominant narrative. In my opinion, I feel like when a storyteller uses multiple mediums to communicate their message, it really helps me understand what’s going on, and I think it makes for a more interesting and engaging story. BEcause social media is so prominent in our lives today, I think that stories are spread faster over social media, which can be a good thing. However, I don’t really know of any negative mediums because every story is going to connect with someone one way or another.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see the faces of those affected and hear their personal accounts and stories, I feel most compelled to take action and engage with an issue. As we saw with Ms. Goldin's documentary short, movies convey an intimate and powerful telling of experiences. No other medium can so powerfully synthesize personal anecdotes, historical context, statistics, and of course, striking footage of events. However, it's important to keep in mind that authors and creators, in this case documentary filmmakers, have every ability to manipulate stories and facts through editing, skewing viewers' perception of events. We have to remain skeptical and cross check sources, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe power of documentaries and "true story" movies reminded me of a weird, slightly-related thing. The Coen brothers marketed Fargo as a true story, which it wasn't, and after its release, a woman traveled to Minnesota to find the buried money that Steve Buscemi had hidden. She ended up dying as a result. Now I'm definitely off track, but basically it goes to show that audiences need to be wary of the mediums and stories they take in, regardless of how impactful they may seem.
I agree with the idea that online platforms such as social media provide access to different stories to a much larger group of people. Like Emma said earlier, nothing is perfect regarding these online platforms; however, I do think how accessible they are and how they allow different individuals to express their uniquely different stories is beneficial to moving away from the dominant narrative. Speaking to Jonathan's point about money, and how books/movies can tend to cost money. I think social media also gives individuals the chance to portray their story through pictures or writing (depending on whatever they feel speaks to them or is more impactful).
ReplyDeleteI think that mediums definitely play a role in how messages are perceived, particularly in the difference between text and works with some sort of visual portion. Like Sophia said, when people see the faces of people affected by certain stories and are able to experience some of their lives outside of solely text, you’re able to empathize and see more of a story. I think that there are certain things that having only text can achieve, but I do believe that a picture can tell a much larger story. For those who consume news and information on the surface level and, like much of America, only look at the big title in front instead of reading more, the one picture included may often be the deciding factor in what they go away with. However, I also agree with Sophie in that it will always vary by person in how they want to take in information, so there isn’t a hard and fast rule on what medium should be used. In the end, while I think that the medium one uses plays a role in how stories are perceived, I also think that the root story of everything will always shine through.
ReplyDeleteI’d be interested in knowing how people in the future look back on us and tell our stories based on what mediums we’ve produced, because for much of history, all we had to work with in trying to decipher history was spoken word/text and/or art.
I think that different mediums can be received differently by an audience, but with the rise of social media and its ability to reach millions of people is very useful. Although social media does have its problems, as Emma stated before like incorrect facts and many other factors, I believe its accessibility is important. I agree with Emma that social media can diverge from the dominant narrative and show both sides of the story but many people can take social media as a joke because its lack of evidence. The news is dominated by people of power (mostly white) and does not pay attention to the younger generation. I do believe that books, pictures, and movies can change the way a story can be perceived but I think that social media is the next up and coming type of media which can reach a huge audience.
ReplyDeleteI think that a picture is still worth a thousand words because images do not have the same language barrier as other forms of media. This allows people of any age throughout the world to look at and understand images that they have never seen before. Images also allow a viewer to relate the subject matter to their own stories, even if it was not what the artist intended. If a story is communicated poorly the reader lacks knowledge that the author wanted to provide. When a story is communicated clearly the reader understands the author’s message, but may not have the same amount of creative freedom as when an author leaves pieces for the reader to fill in. Prospective storytellers should consider who their intended audience is because every medium is different. Younger readers may prefer online articles and stories, whereas and older people may prefer a physical text. The main goal for an author would be to have people read their work, so choosing the medium that is prefered by their target audience is of the utmost importance. The way a story is told is extremely important because when written in a bias manner readers may form their opinions on a topic without viewing the complete story.
ReplyDeleteI think that, to a varying extent, the medium definitely informs and influences the message; that is to say, that the accessibility of different mediums and the way they convey ideas can dramatically alter the way their ideas are perceived. I think that, in many ways, the rise of social media has accelerated the democratization of journalism; more people can bring light to issues affecting their communities, weigh in on important issues, and access expert opinions or reporting quickly. At the same time, I think it's totally remade the news cycle; in past years, people looked to daily newspapers and morning/nightly news for periodic check-ins about current events, and they looked to credible news organizations run by experienced journalists, led by anchors they recognized. The establishment media was elite and stratified, but it was also reliable and generally had tried-and-true fact-checking policies to maintain integrity. Now, the pool of opinions is wider and always shifting; people check the news constantly, on the hour, and can read articles on their phone anytime or watch news recaps online without tuning into a broadcast report. You don't need to be a reporter to gain traction on social media, and people from around the world who wouldn't otherwise be able to make their voice heard internationally can publish their opinions. Major political events like the Arab Spring were enabled by social media, which allowed activists to safely exchange ideas and plan demonstrations; movements like Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter also used social media to raise awareness of their messages. Anyway, in all, I think the medium is the message to the extent that the characteristics of the medium determines the messages it contains: a widely accessible, diverse platform like Twitter allows people of all backgrounds and opinions to share their ideas and potentially be heard, whereas an established professional news organization would provide commentary and information that, while more thoroughly fact-checked, may represent a more limited, highly educated, and professional perspective. Photographs, because they show a situation captured as it is (instead of someone's description of it), can be powerful and humanize an event or conflict, so again the medium determines the message.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI accidentally commented this from as "unknown" above, but: I think that, to a varying extent, the medium definitely informs and influences the message; that is to say, that the accessibility of different mediums and the way they convey ideas can dramatically alter the way their ideas are perceived. I think that, in many ways, the rise of social media has accelerated the democratization of journalism; more people can bring light to issues affecting their communities, weigh in on important issues, and access expert opinions or reporting quickly. At the same time, I think it's totally remade the news cycle; in past years, people looked to daily newspapers and morning/nightly news for periodic check-ins about current events, and they looked to credible news organizations run by experienced journalists, led by anchors they recognized. The establishment media was elite and stratified, but it was also reliable and generally had tried-and-true fact-checking policies to maintain integrity. Now, the pool of opinions is wider and always shifting; people check the news constantly, on the hour, and can read articles on their phone anytime or watch news recaps online without tuning into a broadcast report. You don't need to be a reporter to gain traction on social media, and people from around the world who wouldn't otherwise be able to make their voice heard internationally can publish their opinions. Major political events like the Arab Spring were enabled by social media, which allowed activists to safely exchange ideas and plan demonstrations; movements like Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter also used social media to raise awareness of their messages. Anyway, in all, I think the medium is the message to the extent that the characteristics of the medium determines the messages it contains: a widely accessible, diverse platform like Twitter allows people of all backgrounds and opinions to share their ideas and potentially be heard, whereas an established professional news organization would provide commentary and information that, while more thoroughly fact-checked, may represent a more limited, highly educated, and professional perspective. Photographs, because they show a situation captured as it is (instead of someone's description of it), can be powerful and humanize an event or conflict, so again the medium determines the message.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think the medium through which a story is told completely has an effect on both the story itself and the way the story is perceived by the reader. I think I said something along these lines in class, but I think that one of the greatest benefits from social media is that it's created a new way to tell and share stories. Historically, I think a lot of the mediums that people could tell stories through were super noninclusive, I think that's why we see so many old headlines and movies that are super one-sided and racist/sexist/homophobic etc. With social media, everyone has the ability to tell stories and everyone can have a say. I think social media is really important in terms of not conforming to the dominant narrative. But again, like people have mentioned, there are definite cons: lack of fact checking, bots, shortened attention spans, performative activism, etc. Bascially retweet @ everything Harper said
I don’t think there is one way in which a story can be told, as different sources resonate with different people. Some people wake up in the morning and read the newspaper, and, depending on the source, said newspaper will tell a very specific side to a story. Some people watch the news early in the morning, and each news channel, whether it be Fox News, or CNN, or MSNBC, etc, will display certain biases and favor certain narratives when relaying one story, so said story in turn evolves into many different stories. Lastly, some people wake up and scroll through social media to find out the latest news. With millions of people liking, commenting, sharing, tweeting/retweeting something, one story becomes millions of different stories. I think the way a story is told depends on the audience. A young child probably won’t want to hear a story on the news via CNN or reading the newspaper, and someone in their 80s probably wouldn’t find themselves reading DailyMail. I think, in choosing how to tell your story, you must focus on who you want to listen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that different mediums of storytelling can evoke different emotions from an audience. I think that the more powerful forms of communication are those that are visual. Stills, film, documentaries, news, social media. Very influential. When someone can see something that is real life (or close to it) it is easier to have sympathy, anger, happiness etc. towards that content. Not exactly sure what this has to do with Los Angeles so I will try to make it relevant. We live in the number one entertainment capital of the world. Movies, television, news, streaming services, social media, the list goes on. LA is a hub for these types of mediums. These forms of storytelling, in my opinion, are more effective than storytelling itself. While each medium may evoke something different from an audience, I think that visual elements of storytelling are still the most compelling and influential. haha
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the medium through which a story is told affects how we understand it. I think that an artist can manipulate how much information they want viewers/readers to know by using different mediums. For instance, many paintings are more up to the viewers interpretation, whereas many books and movies communicate a clear message. I also think that photographs are powerful because, while they can be manipulated, they are for the most part very real accounts of events; they provide the truth without much manipulation. Social media platforms have become a popular way of sharing art, news, and stories as well. Whether it be in the form of videos or long tweets, social media allows everyone to share what they have to say; however, the validity and accuracy of many of these posts is questionable.
ReplyDeleteI think that an artist does need to think about how they want to communicate their message especially depending on who their audience is. If they wish to communicate something more locally, then maybe a mural or zine would be appropriate. If they wished to communicate something on the global scale, then maybe a film or photography.
As we come into an age where literally anyone can have their story reach anyone and everyone in the world, I have realized that it is pretty much impossible to find truth in anything. Every incident or event or protest is different in the eyes of everyone who sees or hears about it. As I mentioned in my last blog post its scary to live in a world where even our president is tweeting information that might not even be true. It's SOO easy to hide behind a screen and say things that aren't true/that you don't even mean. People feel less accountable for what they say online. Whether it be with political expression or even personal relationships, communication through social media has changed the way truth is expressed. Like Lux said I'd be interested in the way we will look back on this era in the future and the ways in which popular opinions change.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone is different in the way they interpret media through mediums. Society has seemed to deem text (i.e., Books, journals, etc.) as the forefront of distributing, telling, and teaching academia; however, I believe consuming media through the most popular medium is not necessarily the most effective way to learn or teach. We are in a class that requires us to engage with new forms of media almost every week. From reading text from fictional and nonfictional books to creating our own podcasts, it's clear the City of Angles class is designed to challenge the 'normal' way a classroom is taught. Just around a month ago during our L.A. Noire unit, I was talking with Dr. Stogdill about how exciting it would be to incorporate a videogame into our curriculum. While saying that out loud may sound almost comical, I do believe trying as many new forms of mediums as possible is in our best interest as a class as we all learn differently. I am not suggesting that reading a book is the wrong way to teach or learn; in fact, that's how I learn best. However, there are times where actually touching, hearing, or watching the content may be more beneficial and that's why I believe the current structure of this class is necessary for us to get the most in-depth understanding of Los Angeles through a curriculum that promotes multi-media approach.
ReplyDelete