The Meaning in the Medium

As a practical application of McLuhan's theory that "the 'content' of any medium is always another medium," I have begun to think specifically of my own involvement with the transmission of communication. For example, when I want to approach a friend with, let's say, a particularly personal and emotional issue, I may choose to write her an email instead of approaching her face-to-face, whereas someone else might prefer to use Instant Message to communicate about the issue at hand, or perhaps a phone call. In this instance, while the content is certainly significant to me, as the transmitter of the message, the medium through which I choose to impart the information involved may effect my friend more than the message itself.

If I chose to write her an email, I would certainly communicate in a much different fashion than if I were IMing her; for instance, I would use a different writing style and be more conscious of grammar and my use of language than I might if I were using a more immediate, irrevocable form of communication, as in an IM or text message. And, however much the message itself may matter to me, my friend may interpret it solely upon the basis of its transmission. If I were to IM her, she might misread the complexity or seriousness of the issue, as the IM is often a reflection of relaxed speech and is not generally utilized for the transmission of monumental news or conversation. However, in my choice as to what medium I will use to communicate with my friend, it is imperative that I remember that the medium I choose will inevitably alter the message I am sending, and that the connotation that that medium has to me may be entirely different for the person with whom I am communicating.

So, as Erika pointed out, it would seem that not only does the medium have to be chosen carefully by the creator of the content, but that content can never truly stand alone. In my experience, there is no way to communicate without a medium through which to do so, and therefore, the medium always has an effect on content. However, it is hard to conceptualize McLuhan's theory that the content is only another medium in all cases, for when human issues come into play, it's hard to say that the communication of emotion or theories is not particularly important beyond the new medium they propose through the medium of communication chosen. What then, of the theories we dissect in class? Do the articles we read really only break down into the fact that the content of written theories is language? How do you reconcile McLuhan's ideas of the irrelevance of content? And, furthermore, how does this interact with Baudrillard's ideas about the Left's interpretation of mass media culture as an ideological manipulation? Does the disregarding of content change the media's productive forces?