Okay, if the medium is the message and I consume radio, television, magazines,
newspapers, and books through the internet then what's the message? Does a
stupid thing suddenly become brilliant when it takes a different shape or vice
versa? I'm not entirely kidding. The borders between the various media are
getting blurrier every day and personally the medium doesn't matter to me. It's
like a window. I don't look at it so much as through it. Or a drink. It's nice
to have a proper glass but as long as it's clean who cares what kind of cup it
is? I don't know scholars make a big deal out of such things but I just don't
see it. I don't think it's a crazy idea or anything but it does seem a bit
overplayed and out of proportion. This is essentially a Marxist idea, by the
way. This basic notion that the material means of production will always
determine the shape of culture is a common assumption among Marxist cultural
critics. That assumption or premise practically defines what a Marxist critic
is. I don't know what Postman's background is but it sure wouldn't surprise.
There's my 2.0 cents.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469226/direct/01/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
