It therefore follows that the medium is the message, because it is the medium that determines how the message will be delivered by determining the effectiveness of the message delivery.
Technology and the communications media has transformed and altered people’s lives, through changing the accessibility of information by the society1. The replacement of the message with medium as the core of the communication process might seek to be contradictory, considering that message is the actual information that is delivered to individuals and to the society, through the application of different means. Therefore, the writing and reading contradicted the essence of tribal unity and failed to capture its imagination, which was preferably achieved through oral communication2. In this respect, the medium contradicted the need of the society, thus delivering a whole different and contradicting message from what the society desired.
However, the electronic and the television media came, which then restored the global village system, where communication then took an active role once again3. Thus, in one way, the medium (print and reading) hampered societal communication while the electronic and television media then brought back the societal communication to an active role. Thus, the argument that the medium is the message then becomes questionable, since the medium should support, as opposed to contradicting the message. Nevertheless, McLuhan argues that contradiction is the medium that causes an individual to ponder on two or more issues4.
The gist of the matter is that medium is an important aspect in the spreading of the message, because it plays a major role in determining the effect that the message will have on the receiver/audience. When the right medium is applied to convey the right message, then the message will be effective and its outcome in the society will be achieved. On the other hand, when the right message is transmitted through the wrong