There are a number of interesting as well as confusing ideas presented in McLuhan’s essay “The Medium is the Message”. I still find myself trying to grasp many of them. One of the ideas that confuses me still is how he claims that the content of a message is less important than the medium itself. I understand that the medium, be is speech, television, or radio, would always greatly affect the content, and thus the message. In class it was discussed with personal examples on how the content messages would change slightly between written word, face to face dialogue, and text messaging. But wouldn’t what was being communicated take precedent over how it was communicated? Wouldn’t human drama, circumstance, or knowledge would still be conveyed and remain the message? After reading over recent posts by my classmates I see that this concept is widely being pondered over. I would agree that it is very difficult to get a grasp on how the content is only another medium. If I were to research the life of Benjamin Franklin on the Internet, wouldn’t I still be receiving the message of knowledge on his life despite the medium? Couldn’t I receive the same knowledge by watching a television special on his life or by reading a book about him? If anyone can break It down for me please leave a comment.