This article gives me an interesting perspective to look at media, and also ask many other questions about the forms of media and the content of media. It would not be easy to think what the “content” is actually is. “Content” can be delivered in visual, audio forms, or sometimes a “thing” has its “content” without having anything to be done. For example, the author writes: “The ‘content’, as people used to ask what a painting was about…what a house or a dress was about” (155).But after watching a video or listening to a song, what “content” is received? Can whoever receive the “content” just show it to others? The answer is no. Content needs to be greatly constructed in human’s minds, it is related to the process of thinking, analyzing and believing. Sometimes different people may receive different contents even though they watched the same movie. In this way, I agree with the author that “The content or uses of such media are as diverse as they are ineffectual in shaping the form of human association”. Therefore, in a way beyond that, “… it is only too typical that the ‘content’ of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium” (152).
So to people like General David Sarnoff who hold the opinion that “The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value” (154), we can know that they have ignored the nature of medium. It is the essence of medium that human work and association, to convey the message.
This main point “medium is the message” can also be found in “The Machine Stops”, when Kuno insisted his mom to “come” and visit instead of showing digital images. If the visual visiting is the point, it won’t make sense when Kuno insisted. But different message is conveyed by a real visit, therefore the content doesn’t matter as much as the nature of medium itself does.