Very interesting how you used my favorite quotes from two very-neglected publications, Explorations 8 (regarding the "decanting of words") and From Cliché to Archetype (on "data banks"). I post those all the time!
For being as well-read on McLuhan (and Turkle and Rushkoff and Carr, as I am too) as this piece implies, it's surprising to read the Sarnoff quote (“…products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used…”) without the proper context. McLuhan, you must remember, was deriding Sarnoff's opinion in Understanding Media as “the voice of the current somnambulism.” He didn't just like quoting Sarnoff, he liked bashing him!
I agree that he refused “the easy moralizing of ‘technology as good or evil.’” I'd argue that he, instead, elaborated an extremely complicated and obscure moralizing behind a veneer of suspended judgement which he modeled for a public playing catch-up. He very much was a “Luddite”, insofar as people refused the responsibility for what they were creating en masse, passing the buck up to forces ostensibly beyond anyone's control. He knew perception preceded wise judgement or action, and so perception is what he strove to foster all his publicity.
Extremely well said. You're absolutely right to point out that McLuhan used Sarnoff's quote was to critique what he saw as a dangerously passive and 'somnambulistic' attitude towards technology. My intention was to highlight the common view that McLuhan sought to challenge. I should have made it clearer that this was a setup for contrasting it with his far more complex understanding of media's effects.
That is a crucial point about the 'complicated and obscure moralizing' that underlies McLuhan's work. Yes, he often adopted a veneer of neutrality while subtly guiding his readers toward a particular understanding. I see his project as a kind of moral awakening, an attempt to shake us out of our technological 'somnambulism' and to recognize the profound ways in which media shape our perceptions, even if he shied away from explicit value judgments.
Regarding the 'Luddite' label, I think there's a sense in which McLuhan shared some concerns with the (preconceived characteristics of) Luddites, particularly regarding the uncritical embrace of new technologies. However, I see him less as advocating for a rejection of technology and more as urging us to become more aware of its transformative power so that we can shape its development more consciously. Still, the comparison to the way the Luddites have been reassessed is apt.
I wholeheartedly agree that we're still playing catch-up with McLuhan's insights. His work is perhaps even more relevant today. The challenge he laid out, to become more conscious and critical users of media, remains a vital one.
Thank you for this insightful article! Before reading it, I wasn’t familiar with Marshall McLuhan. It’s fascinating how relevant his theories are in today’s digital age. I’ll explore the books you’ve mentioned—could you recommend the best one for someone new to his work?
As for media, I often struggle with how it functions in my adopted country. While I’m not on social media (though Substack increasingly feels like a social media platform), the following is focused on traditional outlets like news channels and newspapers. Here are the key challenges I face:
1. Partisan Bias – Most media outlets lack independent, balanced assessments. Everything seems filtered through a liberal or conservative lens rather than being judged on its merits or impact on the greater good.
2. Polarized Narratives – Watching the same news story on CNN and Fox News often feels like observing two completely different realities, making it difficult to discern the truth without reading between the lines.
3. Sensationalism – The media’s emphasis on bad news, which drives clicks and attention, distorts reality. While challenges exist, significant progress in many areas is often ignored. We also respond to it more. Peter Diamandis said, “Bad news sells because the amygdala is always looking for something to fear."
4. Prescriptive Thinking – Many outlets don’t just report facts—they tell us how to think about them. I resist this outsourcing of critical thinking and live by the Royal Society’s motto, “Nullius in verba”—“Take no one’s word for it.”
5. Partisan Hostility – Good ideas are frequently dismissed simply because they come from the “other side.” Principles like helping those in need or addressing the national debt should be beyond political affiliations, yet endless debates persist even on these fundamental issues.
6. Echo Chambers – Media outlets often reinforce their narratives by inviting commentators who align with their views. When dissenting voices are invited, they’re frequently outnumbered or overshadowed.
7. Ignored Centrism – Roughly 25-30% of people identify as centrists, yet their voices are often sidelined outside election cycles.
8. Oversimplification – Complex issues are reduced to soundbites or binary arguments, leaving little room for nuance, compromise, or deeper understanding.
9. Ownership and Market Forces—Media companies' owners prioritize profit over truth, catering to partisan audiences and shaping content to serve advertising-driven business models.
10. What Is Truth? - Are we living in a post-truth era where facts and truths are no longer the foundation of public discourse? Alternate truths are often used to justify falsehoods rather than acknowledge when something is partially or entirely false.
11. Lack of Long-Term Thinking - One of the most frustrating aspects of modern media is its focus on short-term events and immediate outcomes, often ignoring the long-term consequences of actions or policies. Media outlets rarely hold politicians and institutions accountable for decisions that will have lasting impacts on society. Instead, they prioritize sensational, headline-grabbing stories that cater to short attention spans. This absence of long-term thinking distorts public priorities and develops a reactive rather than proactive approach to addressing critical issues like climate change, economic inequality, or technological ethics.
12. Taking Certain Things as the Ultimate Truth - Another troubling trend is treating some ideas or concepts as unquestionable truths. For example, "follow the science" is often used to justify decisions. While I fully support the importance of science, we must recognize that science is ever-evolving and context-dependent. Future discoveries may revise or overturn what we accept as scientific truth today. Blindly following "the science" without acknowledging its limitations can lead to rigid thinking and dismissal of alternative perspectives or solutions.
Richard Feynman captured this idea perfectly when he said:
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live without knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, and we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic about the fact, knowledge, and absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
This mindset of embracing uncertainty and remaining open to new possibilities is crucial for genuine progress. Yet, the media often neglects it, preferring definitive narratives that fit neatly into their agendas or simplify complex issues for mass consumption.
How I “try” to address these challenges:
1. Read Both Sides – I explore content from both liberal and conservative outlets to understand the broader narratives shaping public opinion.
2. Deep Reading—I read extensively on various topics to develop informed opinions rather than rely solely on media interpretations. I read mostly nonfiction books, except in my area of expertise and science, at least 15 years old or from the 20th century. I believe in Lindy’s effect: if some idea or book has survived and is still popular 15 years later, it has some value. Also, try to read non-US authors for another perspective.
3. Limit News Consumption – I avoid social media entirely and minimize exposure to sensationalized news broadcasts.
4. Engage Opposing Views—I actively seek conversations with people with different perspectives to understand their thoughts and concerns better.
5. Rely on Balanced Sources—In the U.S., “The Wall Street Journal” offers the closest thing to balanced reporting, with opinion pieces leaning conservative and general reporting leaning liberal. It has become my go-to newspaper to start my exploration of any topic.
Overall, I think navigating today’s media landscape requires much conscious effort and critical thinking to stay informed without being manipulated.
Such a great comment, thank you - I am pretty much offline today so will reply tomorrow, it gives me more time to reflect on your thoughts. As to books - in this order Understanding Media and The Gutenberg Galaxy. Highly recommended.
Very interesting how you used my favorite quotes from two very-neglected publications, Explorations 8 (regarding the "decanting of words") and From Cliché to Archetype (on "data banks"). I post those all the time!
For being as well-read on McLuhan (and Turkle and Rushkoff and Carr, as I am too) as this piece implies, it's surprising to read the Sarnoff quote (“…products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used…”) without the proper context. McLuhan, you must remember, was deriding Sarnoff's opinion in Understanding Media as “the voice of the current somnambulism.” He didn't just like quoting Sarnoff, he liked bashing him!
I agree that he refused “the easy moralizing of ‘technology as good or evil.’” I'd argue that he, instead, elaborated an extremely complicated and obscure moralizing behind a veneer of suspended judgement which he modeled for a public playing catch-up. He very much was a “Luddite”, insofar as people refused the responsibility for what they were creating en masse, passing the buck up to forces ostensibly beyond anyone's control. He knew perception preceded wise judgement or action, and so perception is what he strove to foster all his publicity.
We, the public, are still playing catch-up.
Extremely well said. You're absolutely right to point out that McLuhan used Sarnoff's quote was to critique what he saw as a dangerously passive and 'somnambulistic' attitude towards technology. My intention was to highlight the common view that McLuhan sought to challenge. I should have made it clearer that this was a setup for contrasting it with his far more complex understanding of media's effects.
That is a crucial point about the 'complicated and obscure moralizing' that underlies McLuhan's work. Yes, he often adopted a veneer of neutrality while subtly guiding his readers toward a particular understanding. I see his project as a kind of moral awakening, an attempt to shake us out of our technological 'somnambulism' and to recognize the profound ways in which media shape our perceptions, even if he shied away from explicit value judgments.
Regarding the 'Luddite' label, I think there's a sense in which McLuhan shared some concerns with the (preconceived characteristics of) Luddites, particularly regarding the uncritical embrace of new technologies. However, I see him less as advocating for a rejection of technology and more as urging us to become more aware of its transformative power so that we can shape its development more consciously. Still, the comparison to the way the Luddites have been reassessed is apt.
I wholeheartedly agree that we're still playing catch-up with McLuhan's insights. His work is perhaps even more relevant today. The challenge he laid out, to become more conscious and critical users of media, remains a vital one.
Thank you for this insightful article! Before reading it, I wasn’t familiar with Marshall McLuhan. It’s fascinating how relevant his theories are in today’s digital age. I’ll explore the books you’ve mentioned—could you recommend the best one for someone new to his work?
As for media, I often struggle with how it functions in my adopted country. While I’m not on social media (though Substack increasingly feels like a social media platform), the following is focused on traditional outlets like news channels and newspapers. Here are the key challenges I face:
1. Partisan Bias – Most media outlets lack independent, balanced assessments. Everything seems filtered through a liberal or conservative lens rather than being judged on its merits or impact on the greater good.
2. Polarized Narratives – Watching the same news story on CNN and Fox News often feels like observing two completely different realities, making it difficult to discern the truth without reading between the lines.
3. Sensationalism – The media’s emphasis on bad news, which drives clicks and attention, distorts reality. While challenges exist, significant progress in many areas is often ignored. We also respond to it more. Peter Diamandis said, “Bad news sells because the amygdala is always looking for something to fear."
4. Prescriptive Thinking – Many outlets don’t just report facts—they tell us how to think about them. I resist this outsourcing of critical thinking and live by the Royal Society’s motto, “Nullius in verba”—“Take no one’s word for it.”
5. Partisan Hostility – Good ideas are frequently dismissed simply because they come from the “other side.” Principles like helping those in need or addressing the national debt should be beyond political affiliations, yet endless debates persist even on these fundamental issues.
6. Echo Chambers – Media outlets often reinforce their narratives by inviting commentators who align with their views. When dissenting voices are invited, they’re frequently outnumbered or overshadowed.
7. Ignored Centrism – Roughly 25-30% of people identify as centrists, yet their voices are often sidelined outside election cycles.
8. Oversimplification – Complex issues are reduced to soundbites or binary arguments, leaving little room for nuance, compromise, or deeper understanding.
9. Ownership and Market Forces—Media companies' owners prioritize profit over truth, catering to partisan audiences and shaping content to serve advertising-driven business models.
10. What Is Truth? - Are we living in a post-truth era where facts and truths are no longer the foundation of public discourse? Alternate truths are often used to justify falsehoods rather than acknowledge when something is partially or entirely false.
11. Lack of Long-Term Thinking - One of the most frustrating aspects of modern media is its focus on short-term events and immediate outcomes, often ignoring the long-term consequences of actions or policies. Media outlets rarely hold politicians and institutions accountable for decisions that will have lasting impacts on society. Instead, they prioritize sensational, headline-grabbing stories that cater to short attention spans. This absence of long-term thinking distorts public priorities and develops a reactive rather than proactive approach to addressing critical issues like climate change, economic inequality, or technological ethics.
12. Taking Certain Things as the Ultimate Truth - Another troubling trend is treating some ideas or concepts as unquestionable truths. For example, "follow the science" is often used to justify decisions. While I fully support the importance of science, we must recognize that science is ever-evolving and context-dependent. Future discoveries may revise or overturn what we accept as scientific truth today. Blindly following "the science" without acknowledging its limitations can lead to rigid thinking and dismissal of alternative perspectives or solutions.
Richard Feynman captured this idea perfectly when he said:
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live without knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, and we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic about the fact, knowledge, and absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
This mindset of embracing uncertainty and remaining open to new possibilities is crucial for genuine progress. Yet, the media often neglects it, preferring definitive narratives that fit neatly into their agendas or simplify complex issues for mass consumption.
How I “try” to address these challenges:
1. Read Both Sides – I explore content from both liberal and conservative outlets to understand the broader narratives shaping public opinion.
2. Deep Reading—I read extensively on various topics to develop informed opinions rather than rely solely on media interpretations. I read mostly nonfiction books, except in my area of expertise and science, at least 15 years old or from the 20th century. I believe in Lindy’s effect: if some idea or book has survived and is still popular 15 years later, it has some value. Also, try to read non-US authors for another perspective.
3. Limit News Consumption – I avoid social media entirely and minimize exposure to sensationalized news broadcasts.
4. Engage Opposing Views—I actively seek conversations with people with different perspectives to understand their thoughts and concerns better.
5. Rely on Balanced Sources—In the U.S., “The Wall Street Journal” offers the closest thing to balanced reporting, with opinion pieces leaning conservative and general reporting leaning liberal. It has become my go-to newspaper to start my exploration of any topic.
Overall, I think navigating today’s media landscape requires much conscious effort and critical thinking to stay informed without being manipulated.
Such a great comment, thank you - I am pretty much offline today so will reply tomorrow, it gives me more time to reflect on your thoughts. As to books - in this order Understanding Media and The Gutenberg Galaxy. Highly recommended.