The Medium is the Message?

---

As I’ve been reading Nicholas Carr’s just-released book, Superbloom, he’s alluded to a phrase several times that previously felt, at best, on my periphery: “the medium is the message”. I believe this was first coined by philosopher Marshall McLuhan in the 1960s, but I’d only heard it here and there over my years. Admittedly, as an engineer, this high-level sociology concept didn’t make immediate sense to me and was subsequently ignored, but Carr’s continued explanation and example on the concept has me both understanding it more and pondering it continuously.

If the medium is the message, what message am I sending by using this medium?

Or maybe put more applicably, it has me thinking about what I really did by switching to an email distribution list rather than Facebook posts. Regardless of the content being virtually the same (mostly just family pictures), how does the change of medium alter the overall message? What did I say just by switching to email?

The What is the What?

Without turning into a total word salad here, I think I’m finding that ultimately “the message” that each medium carries is a combination of underlying implications being asserted by the sender in having chosen that medium, and a corresponding set of implied expectations the recipient will likely feel the weight of fulfilling.

For instance, when a typical person sends a text message to someone else, they’re doing so because they have some implicit sense of response time desired. Sending “Hey, do you know if the car has gas?” via text message is hoping for a quick reply. And of course, receiving that question via SMS puts the onus on you to actually reply quickly! The sender chose SMS as a medium because they understood that they’d be implying a desire for a quick response just by using SMS as the medium.

Imagine instead sending the same, “Hey, do you know if the car has gas?” via email. What mindset would you be in to choose email as the correct mechanism for that message? Presumably one where you don’t need an answer any time soon!

The message of the SMS medium is that responses should be quick. It’s also that messages should be brief and fleeting; not intended to persist. SMS demands your attention. They’re personal, direct messages. They’re asynchronous, yet they lie about their asynchronicity — you’re probably an awkward friend if you don’t respond to text messages with some sense of speed! A text message says, “Hey you! Come here. Open this and read it now! Respond quickly. Don’t take too long and don’t write too much; this is a fast interaction”.

And all of that is before reading (or writing) the actual content of the message!

What Did My Medium Say

Exploring and extrapolating the messages a particular medium connotes is… hard. For me, at least. I have to be especially thoughtful and reflective around the expectations set forth, as both a sender and a recipient, and deliberately ignore the content of the messages. Again, as an engineer, this is not my default skill set 😅.

Nonetheless, I think Facebook sends some messages that really disagree with what I’m after in sharing my pictures and life with my friends! I believe these are some of the messages being implicitly sent by Facebook as a medium. As a sender (“poster” / someone who posts on Facebook):

• This is just going to be another post in an endless feed
• You should optimize for whatever will bring in the Likes and Comments
• The quality of your post is determined by interactions and the notification bell
• We’ll deliver this post to more people the better we deem it to be; beware
• Your thoughts, photos, and stories are just ‘content’
• You have your own stage here, but we control your audience; you’re a performer in a sea of stages

And similarly, as a recipient (someone viewing others’ posts), their own set of messages:

• This is just another post in the feed, carry on
• This has nothing to do with me, it’s just posted for everyone to see
• Engagement equals value — if others haven’t liked or commented, maybe it’s not worth my attention
• I’m part of an audience, not part of a conversation
• If it’s important for me, they would’ve messaged me directly

And… I sort of hate all of those messages? I may have felt them subconsciously previously, but putting words to them directly feels awful.

To Email

Now I’ll contrast that with the underlying messages I believe email carries. As the sender, I believe I’m saying:

• I’m speaking to you directly; one to one
• This message is important enough to send directly to you
• I care about making sure you see this, not just hoping you stumble upon it
• There is no stage; I’m sending a direct message to a friend
• This isn’t meant to be fleeting — I want it to sit in your inbox until you’re ready
• This also isn’t meant to be rapid; it’s slow
• I’m sharing something with intention, not performing for an audience
• I value a personal connection over broad visibility
• I’ve chosen you to receive this, not an algorithm

And, hopefully, as a recipient, apart from the content of the email, you feel these messages:

• This was meant for me — it was sent specifically to me
• There is no audience, I am speaking one-on-one with the sender
• I don’t need to read this now; I can come back when I’m ready
• It’s okay to take my time and read this message thoughtfully; there’s no rush
• This is an invitation to reply — I can continue this conversation directly
• This email will stay in my inbox until I choose what to do with it; it’s not going to vanish
• I’m part of a deliberate connection, not an incidental audience

I feel much more like these medium-messages align with what I’m actually after with the content itself. I felt an innate tension when trying to use Facebook as the medium to accomplish my goal, which I noted previously as:

to share my photographs and occasional thoughts with my friends and family who want to see/read them, in a format that’s easily accessible for both me and them, to support and sprinkle joy into established, in-person-first relationships.

And I simply think that email, with its directness, slowness, and recipient-selection, will help me stick to that goal more than Facebook would/did.

I Seek the Thoughtful

When I redesigned and rebuilt my website last year, I did so targeting a distraction-free visual theme / design. Few colors, little visual pizzaz, and few features. I designed it to support my words in the best way possible: showcasing the words alone (in a lovely font) without worrying about the words alone not capturing the reader. I accepted that if the words themselves weren’t compelling enough to capture a given reader, then I either need to grow as a compelling writer or that visitor simply isn’t available for slow, long-form thoughtfulness. Either is a fine outcome, but hopefully it’s more often the former than the latter. I wrapped this up into a paragraph on my homepage (which is also very plain!)

So while this site won’t capture your attention the way flashy videos or graphics will, I seek the thoughtful. As I daily retreat to my own Walden to write, code, think, or otherwise build compelling things which cannot be created amidst distraction, I hope that you find something novel here — something worthy of the time spent finding it.

All of that to say, if the medium brings forth its own message and opinions, maybe I’m just coming to realize that my life of digital minimalism and depth-of-thought is ultimately incongruent with the medium of social media. Not because of its addicting and distracting powers (both of which are real and awful), but because of the message implied to others simply by participating. Maybe understanding the messages and expectations each medium carries will help me only operate in mediums that support my thoughtfulness goals.

Maybe I’ll even stop texting. Who knows. 😅

J

---

Comments? Thoughts?

Replying to ...
Cancel

Full Name

Email

Comment

Please note: spam comments happen a lot. All submitted comments are run through OpenAI to detect and block spam.