comm theory research paper

Running head: MEDIA ECOLOGY THEORY 1

Media Ecology Theory

Nick Shaffer

Olivet Nazarene University

MEDIA ECOLOGY THEORY 2

Media Ecology Theory

Media ecology is essentially all around everyone at all times. Media indicates channels

people use to send a message to others. Ecology refers to a community of organisms that work

together to achieve steady flow and harmony. Specifically in the case of humans, which are the

target audience of media ecology theory, ecology is a society that forms cultural understanding,

influences, and changes through proper communicative interactions. The theory of media

ecology, therefore, is the study of media environments. It makes the assumption that all forms of

media profoundly influence not just society, but all walks of life. As the research shows, societal

changes occur, cultures grow, jobs change, people change, and eras of information transition

from one to the other through the media. It is extremely important to note that media ecology

neglects the idea that the media is merely a reflection of society. Media is a persuasive device

that influences attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

To better understand media ecology theory, it is important to know the many facets of

research on it. First and foremost, the complexity of the theory can be alleviated by viewing its

metaphysics. Research then provides some contributions and limitations to the theory based on

the interpretations of worldly phenomena and breakthroughs it has made in culture. Then,

applications of the theory are provided in order to see how the theory works in action. Also,

criticisms are provided in attempt to disprove whether the theory is factually accurate or helpful.

After, future developments and secondary notes on the theory are covered. Finally, the research

will have an overall conclusion. These categories of research will be found under their respective

headings.


Metaphysics (Communication Role and Origin)

The metaphysics of media ecology theory describe the general attributes of it—ranging

from what the theory is, its role in communication, its origin, and semantics. The origin of the

theory first came from Neil Postman, a communication theorist. He introduced the term formally

in 1968, but did not conceptualize it. It was actually first introduced and conceptualized in 1964,

when Marshall McLuhan, a popular philosopher of communication theory, was prompted to

come up with a notion based on simple observations that media has become a powerful and

evolving force. The theory also has striking similarities with agenda-setting theory, which could

have been influential in creating media ecology theory (Wanta et al., 2004). To convey the

meaning of the theory (which has been established is the study of the media environment in the

world), McLuhan summed it up in an axiom: “Media is the message.” It is a seemingly simple

metaphor that is actually quite complex, but research outside of McLuhan’s original source helps

decipher and disambiguate its meaning.

A dialogue or manuscript is provided by Eric McLuhan and Peter Zhang (2012), which

includes them talking about the overarching theme of media ecology theory. McLuhan, who is

Marshall McLuhan’s son, explains the message his father presented and goes on to say that the

media plays a key role in society and culture. More so, communication technology, an evolving

medium, is the primary cause of social change (p.246). He clears up the ambiguity behind the

message by explaining that the medium means an “environment or milieu, a total situation.”

Meaning that the medium is not some figure or tangible object, or at least that is not what it

should be limited to. Obviously, tangible media is all around us: television, newspapers, radio,

etc. It can be heard, viewed, and touched—and actually appeal to all of our senses. McLuhan

wants people to understand that it is more than that by stating that he, himself, is a medium just


like everyone else. This fits the theory that the medium is an environment or “ground” for

communication that he has already created by talking, bringing others into the environment with

him, and therefore influencing what is going on (p. 248). Strate (2008) uses a vivid illustration to

better understand what McLuhan presented as the medium being an environment. He illustrates

that the billiard ball is not the medium, but instead, the billiard table is. Same with the actor, as

he is not the medium, but the stage is. Media is there for people to be able to utilize it and “move

around,” just like with a stage. He explains that media does not dictate people’s actions, it

“defines a range of actions” for people to use, and encourages some actions while discouraging

others (p. 135). That is the typical rule it has in communication.

Stephens (2014) reiterates McLuhan’s message, but notes that people must be discerning

of what the theory entails. This is because since the axiom infers that the meaning of the text

within the medium is inseparable from the physics of the medium, then it forces people to “think

ecologically in a substantive way, rather than a conceptually metaphorical one” (p. 2034).

Basically, Stephens means that although the content in the medium cannot be taken out of it,

because the medium is the message itself, and not the content, people should not take the

meaning so literally because they will not understand the importance of the medium or why

media hold influential meaning. Being that there cannot be any substantial proof of the medium

being the message, looking at it in a metaphorical sense is the only way the theory can be viable.

In a normal communication map of two humans, there is a process in which a message is

sent from the sender to the receiver. In this process of communication, the discourse between the

two humans is the content, while the humans themselves are the mediums (Stephens, 2014, p.

2028). In media ecology, McLuhan and researchers believe that humans were one of the first

primary mediums in history, and therefore making them a technology. Strate (2008) also finds


this to be true in media ecology because technology is a natural entity first, not purely a digital

one, and humans, or human speech, is a medium because it produces communication between

different endpoints as a technology (p. 136). There may be confusion when viewing humans as

being one of the primary mediums and comparing it to the metaphors of the medium being the

message and environment, but both still coincide within the theory. The analogy Strate made

comparing the billiard ball to the human and the table to the medium still works in the situation

of the human being the medium because the language of the human is then looked at as the

environment that influences and makes suggestions to our beliefs, attitudes, and behavior—

which would be the billiard ball in this situation. Swapping of media is common in order to fit

the metaphor of media ecology theory (p. 137). Furthermore, according to Lollar (2012), rhetoric

plays a profound part in media ecology theory. Just like humans themselves, other media such as

rhetoric, grammar, semiotics, and language creates differences in communication across different

cultures (p. 48). Biases are said to form based on the difference in media based in other cultures,

as well.

Contributions and Limitations

Dovetailing from the metaphysics of media ecology theory, other philosophers and

communication theorists have contributed to McLuhan’s theory. By contributing, they have

either expanded upon his rules and processes or added new thoughts. Their contributions are

based on interpretations of worldly phenomena and breakthroughs media ecology has supposedly

made in culture. Interpretations of worldly phenomena refer to media ecology being used to help

others better understand what is going on around them. Breakthroughs refer to a drastically-made

change or progression in society and culture due to media ecology. However, there are some


limitations based on the credibility of the authors and some limitations that stem from their

contributions.

Interpretations of Worldly Phenomena

Strate (2008) says that to better understand media ecology in its worldly context, one

must know that there are four sections in McLuhan’s media history: oral (or tribal), scribal (or

literary), print, and electronic (p. 134). These ages of media are due to technological

advancements within the media itself. Media are entities that work together to reinvent and

improve upon itself. The different ages of media apply to their respective cultures. Oral media

was most prominent in the earth’s earliest years, tracing back to primitive times and even times

when great philosophers used the art of rhetoric. In the scribal age, the development of systems

of writings began with tribal societies in Egypt, China, India, and Mesopotamia. The Gutenberg

Press further transitioned the scribal age to the print age, and it simultaneously shifted people

from the medieval period in Europe to modernity. Films, videos, music, and the internet

transitioned societies to a new era known as postmodernism, also known as the electronic age in

media.

The shift in media ages does, however, hinder communication. Communication is not

hindered because interaction may turn out poorly, but because the limitations of certain media

may result in different outcomes that are unequally effective. In contrast to print media, which

maintains a sense of distance between reader and writer, electronic media brings people together

because of it speed and audiovisual form (Strate, 2008, p. 136). If someone desires more

togetherness than distance, than they may enjoy electronic media. Although, in contrast to face-

to-face (oral) media, electronic media keeps people further apart. People are said to be together

and apart at the same time through media in their relationships (p. 137). For instance, with


electronic media, people can project themselves through the internet and automatically create an

alter ego. Media ecology has limitations in certain media in a way that may seem disingenuous

and false, but it does not mean it is necessarily accurate.

To make better sense of the transition from rhetoric all the way to electronic media,

Lollar (2012) explains that rhetoric, which gave words its meanings and created many languages

people use to communicate with one another, has set down the groundwork for people’s desire to

share, and it has created the most personal connections people have. Lollar recognizes now that

the dependence of communication has mainly fallen on electronic media because “all the

knowledge and know-how is available through the board and now the cell phone” (p. 50). This

means that electronics’ influence can have control over institutions that still heavily rely on both

electronic and other media. Schools, government, and publishing companies no longer have

control as the media has been put in the individuals’ hands, creating an imbalance of power and

knowledge. A limitation of this would be that although human communication is expedited

through text and email, it does not necessarily further knowledge or memory—it just simply

enhances the communication process.

After McLuhan’s time, the concept of “new” media has been added to the terminology of

media ecology theory. The “new” media has created a common globalized media environment

and culture. Valacanis (2011) explains that the nineteenth century western world gained

instantaneous communication technology. The telegraph was created, and that led to the

telephone, fax machine, radio, satellite communication, fiber-optic cables—which are all part of

the “pre-computer meditated” communication (p. 34). This then carried over to the new media

culture, which is the convergence of older media and communication technologies on the

computer, or internet, to set up networks of society. Since the internet is there, people are forced


to use it. Media has provided railroads and automobiles as transportation, and people will not go

back to riding a horse only because there are newer and more efficient media—like new media.

New media is part of the new information age, simply meaning that is the new way

everyone gathers their information. The television, phone, and internet, being the most important

because it now controls most technologies, are a universal fixture primarily in western homes.

They are said to target broader audiences—children and parents—and with the perspective of

media ecology theory, material ideas like the internet make an impact on politics, economics,

and cultural production and reception (which all happen to be applications). Valacanis (2011)

states that “we are different as a people, as a society, and a networked ‘global village’” (p.43). A

“global village” is a a vital application of media ecology theory, as it is defined as—just like

McLuhan described—to be how the world has been constructed into a community by electronic

technology. New media technology is believed to transform culture, not add to it (p. 33). The

limitation in the author’s findings is that transformation of culture seems to be restricted to the

change of media, which has been radically transformed itself. Older mediums, like rhetoric and

print, are not efficiently studied to establish new media’s complete effect, but its profound effect

can still be heavily inferred based on simple observations of this century (p. 42).

Every democracy on earth has been reconfigured by electronic and digital media

(McLuhan and Zhang, 2012, p. 254). Playing with space and time, people are able to be “here

and there” at the same time because of television, the World Wide Web, satellites, and more (p.

256). It is already known that new media can provide people with more efficient communication,

but it also provides instantaneous information. The aforementioned information age in this new

era of electronics and internet is the most appealing now than it has ever been in years because

people are able to access information whenever they want to. McLuhan and Zhang specify two


types of media in which information is conveyed: hot and cool media. Marshall McLuhan even

developed these two types of media over time. Hot media only concentrates one sensory organ at

a time and requires little participation. Examples of this would be books and radio. Cool media

requires more participation and interpretation from participants because it is multisensory.

Examples of this include television and seminars. Hot media gives more of a straightforward

message, with little to no interpretation, than cool media. A cultured person is someone who has

the capacity to face life’s immediate problems through refraction, reflection, and deflection of

cultural artifacts, or hot and cool media (p. 270). McLuhan and Zhang also point out that hot and

cool media have limitations because translating a medium into hot or cold is relative, not

absolute. People may think games, literature, and art are blurred in terms of media types. Also,

problems may occur when a medium is hot because “nothing circulates or communicates” with

some people, while cool media may “control every active interaction” (p. 259).

Media ecology aims to understand how technologies and techniques of communication

control the form, quality, speed, and distribution of information, and how that then affects

people’s beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions (Fiordo, 2009, p. 142). The form of information is

how the medium presents information by either having people listen to it, watch it, or even feel

it. The quality refers to whether the medium is a credible source of information and whether it is

biased or not. Speed is how quickly the medium sends the information and when it is received.

The distribution of information is whether the medium duplicates a message and how pervasive

the information becomes. Fiordo, who is a communication professor, also explains that there are

social, cultural, and psychological impacts made from media symbols (p. 143). This agrees with

McLuhan’s assumption that semiotics of say television or newspapers already create a meaning

of themselves, without people even seeing the content they deliver. He believes that someone


may see that a television is on and it will automatically elicit either social or antisocial behavior

based on what their reference and referent of the medium is. Contributions to media ecology

theory show that people will base their opinions on things based on feelings of media. Also, their

interpretations of phenomena are correlated directly with the evolving hermeneutics of media

ecology.

Breakthroughs in Culture

Postman (2000), who formally introduced the term “media ecology,” builds upon

McLuhan’s theory based on breakthroughs it has made specifically in American culture. Media

ecology is a strong moving force within a growing democracy, as McLuhan points out, that

without use of media there would be no religious freedom, free speech, women’s suffrage rights,

or civil liberties (p. 13). Word of prejudice, discrimination, and inequality have only been spread

through the media environment; even the evolution of oral communication to print, like the

Gutenberg Press, has made all freedoms possible (pgs. 12-13). Democracy has made a

breakthrough with the internet because people are able to access what they want at their own

convenience, and it has also formed a sense of individualism and social cohesion because of the

freedom to connect whenever people want (p. 14). This should not be confused with an

application of media ecology, as the growth of culture is presently a key concept of media

ecology theory.

A medium is a technology within which a culture grows: it gives form to a culture’s

politics, social organization, and habitual ways of thinking. Postman (2000) uses the term “media

ecology” today to suggest that people are “interested in the ways in which interaction between

media and human beings give a culture its character and help culture to maintain symbolic

balance” (p. 11). It is assumed that culture is formed within media, rather than media being


produced by culture. The web of media and cultural influences becomes very complex because

they begin to interact so closely together that they ultimately become a single unit. Cultures, just

like humans, become their own medium because they mirror exactly what other media

technologies convey. A limitation of this is Postman believes that some of his views considering

morals and ethical context varied from McLuhan’s views. Postman thinks that “good” media is

what makes acceptable cultural norms, whereas “bad” media creates unacceptable cultural

norms. McLuhan believed that the influence media has on culture is based on how people

interpret the media and decide how to apply it to their everyday lives (p. 11). This goes with the

idea that media sets out possibilities of action with influence and transformation, but does not

exactly dictate actions. McLuhan believed that there had to be a naturalistic and un-moralistic

view on media because interpretations of good and bad media are made in the mind.

Forsberg (2014) argues that media ecology has made contributions in theology, though.

External media and theology, which can also be considered another medium, may even influence

each other as they “interlock, overlap, and interconnect in many ways” (p. 151). The author

states that prominent media ecologists were interested in the relationship between theology,

people’s understanding of God, and the technological media of communication (p. 138). He

confirms that Postman’s Judaic roots influenced his cultural critique. Also, McLuhan’s faith did

supposedly permeate his work with media scholarship, but it was still quite neutralized

considering his view on good and bad media (p. 139). Changes in basic forms of communication

over the years have had an impact on theology. People must understand that the only reason they

understand biblical texts, Christian communities, and morals and ethics is because they have

been shaped by the media which creates an environment where people are able to access said

information (p. 151). Experience and knowledge of God can be represented through documents


written on stone, papyrus, books, video, film, and more. Media ecology and theology have

similarities in environment, structure, natural universe, abstraction, and time binding because of

the convergences they have had in history.

Applications

Applications are provided in order to exemplify media ecology in real world situations.

They are based entirely off of the metaphysics and contributions of the theory. Media ecology’s

prevalence is seen throughout the world, and applications can be used as a lens to see where,

when, and how it is actively working. Media being an influential force is the key concept when

applying the theory. As it will be seen in the applications, media ecology is said to greatly affect

global affairs, politics, discourse, and even countries that are typically more socially closed.

Wanta et al. (2004) states that news media is seen as having a high influence on people’s

thoughts and perceptions. Specifically, people usually form their beliefs and attitudes after they

view news focused on foreign affairs and nations. As previously mentioned, it is not exactly

what is being reported on foreign news coverage, but the fact that a certain foreign issue is

constantly being covered. Generally, some people may not read or listen to specific details and

just end up only getting the bigger picture, which may be skewed. For example, messages can be

morally skewed or biased by repeatedly putting on news stories associated with defamatory

captions, and then people can end up turning on the television and see glimpses of what and how

it is being reported. United States news coverage on 9/11 and Al-Qaida gained prominence in

world perception, and it usually sent fear-provoking messages, if anything. In the United States,

having an abundance of important information and sources, and with just limited time, news

directors will only pick a handful of stories (usually ones preaching the same thing), and they

leave others out (p. 365). Right or wrong, the public’s perception on 9/11 and Al-Qaida is now


utterly transparent, and there is no doubt that the media was the primary source of information

and influence.

Also, based on results from a study by Wanta et al. (2004), although Saudi Arabia and

Kuwait received relatively little media coverage, they were still relatively high on the public’s

vital interest agenda. However, this is neither a criticism of media ecology theory, nor is it

debunking the affects media has had on the public perception of foreign countries. This is

because the public knew that Saudi Arabia was the leader among oil-rich OPEC nations through

politic officials, and they knew Kuwait was important to the United States because the armed

forces fought to regain the country’s independence (p. 372). The media in this situation was not

television news or newspapers, but were political officials and the army for acting as a

communication environment that contributed to the public’s understanding of the United States’

needs.

Ohlendorf (2008) delves deeper into the political ground by applying media ecology to

modern day and past politicians, political discourse, and political institutions. Technology, such

as television and the internet, affect institutions and the political discourse Americans engage in

because a change in communication also means a change in the effects of communication (p.

1151). Ohlendorf provides an example that contrasts the modern presidential campaign in a

televised debate verses debates before they were televised. With the Lincoln and Douglas

presidential debate, they took turns, there was a one-hour speech, an hour-and-thirty-minute

reply, and then an extra thirty-minute refute. Now, with the change of media and introduction of

television, style is what wins over a vote (p. 1153). Speech comes second fiddle to how

candidates look, how they smile, or how they deliver quirky one-liners. It has become less about

whether someone has the qualifications to govern and more about entertaining, which is what


Ronald Reagan meant when he said, “Politics is just like show business.” More contemporary

examples show how people’s views of politics have changed with comedic enterprises, such as

The Colbert Report and 2006’s Man of the Year (p. 1152). Television’s effect on the senate has

also produced an important byproduct: the heightened sense of money (p. 1555). The author

states that it is unfortunate that politics have turned into freak shows, but there is no denial to the

overall power media has over it.

China is almost always at the epicenter of media restrictions. Since social media has

emerged in many cultures at the turn of the century, China is one country in particular that has

seen it become a powerful tool of communication mostly between young adults. Since social

media can contribute and consume each other’s cultures and subcultures, China has been seeing

little change allegedly through the media (Allison, 2013, p. 73). For example, the new media is

sometimes modified and skewed because of the involvement of government—a separate medium

—which tries to control and censor digital media. However, the unfolding of popular culture in

China this century and the use of mobile devices have given its consumers privacy, meaning that

their cultural experience can now be a “singular” one (p. 73). Allison even believes that although

China is so closed off, that through time, China can be transformed socially and politically as the

media transforms.

Criticisms

Criticisms of the theory and application of the theory are provided in attempt to disprove

it. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has similarities with media ecology theory because the

hypothesis focuses on language media as having a strong correlation with the world (Littlejohn,

2002). The strong form of the hypothesis states that language determines the way people view

the world, which media ecology disagrees with, but the weak form of the hypothesis suggests


that language does influence the way people view the world, which is in congruence with media

ecology theory. There is some evidence that is in favor of the hypothesis, such as studies

showing aspects of language affecting the categorization of objects, but there are also many

criticisms of the hypothesis. For example, critics believe that perception of different objects were

present even before language and a language does not typically have one word to express

something, as there is usually another way to express an idea. The consensus is that there may

only be some truth to the hypothesis, but just because the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and media

ecology theory have similarities, does not mean that the criticisms apply to media ecology

theory. However, the heavy criticisms of language, which is an oral medium, has potential to

make media ecology theory fall at the seams because oral media plays a substantial role in

human communication—even with today’s new media. Oral media has set the groundworks for

all other media to follow, which means that other media can possibly have similar flaws. Due to

close correlations, the criticisms suggest a stronger chance that scribal, print, and electronic

media do not influence all walks of life if language does not.

Strate (2008) agrees with the key concepts of media ecology, but does point out the

common criticisms of it, which he considers to be misconceptions. Considering that McLuhan

believed the medium was the message and the user was the content, readers must interpret the

message they receive, process the sensory data, and make meaning out of their environment.

Critics say that the medium is not the message because they believe McLuhan has denied the

existence of content (p. 132). This is false though, because McLuhan believes that content does

exist, it just has a secondary role in relation to the medium, and the medium can shape people

individually and collectively. For example, a criticism of the application of the theory comes

from the NRA (National Rifle Association), as it does not agree with McLuhan’s message


because it violates their slogan, “Guns don’t kill people, people do” (p. 130). McLuhan believes

that the medium, which is the symbolic form and structure of technology, is more significant

than the content. So, in this case, McLuhan would believe guns do kill people simply because, as

a medium, it sends a message that creates a plethora of interpretations, good and bad. The NRA

denies the idea that materials matter in the environment.

The objective of media ecology is to make technological specifications of a media

environment, such as a book or film, more explicit from the environments’ implicates and

informalities (Scolari, 2012, p. 205). Scolari criticizes the big picture of media ecology theory

describing the effects media has on the world, and that it is studied holistically and synthetically,

not in components (p. 207). The problem is that media ecology in this century, when viewed as a

metaphor, does not provide good answers or one-to-one correspondence between biological and

technological domains (p. 218). He argues that analogies offer new insights and useful

perspectives, but actual answers to how they correspond can only be found outside of the theory.

Stephens (2014) brings up a similar critique by stating that the problem with treating the ecology

aspect of media ecology as a conceptual metaphor is that it “essentially ignores the more-than-

human ecosystems from which we are, and our technologies, emerge” (p. 2034).

Postman (2000) assessed some similar criticisms himself. He states that some critics

believe that media ecology has become “too trendy,” which may seem like a superficial

criticism, but actually refers to the theory becoming too broad and non-specific. They believe it

is more comfortable in biology than in the social sciences (p. 11). This statement stems from the

fact that humans and environmental amenities, such as the sky, trees, and land, are largely

considered to be a media technology along with electronic media. Postman counters these

criticisms by stating that what seems like biology in media ecology is actually social science


because human beings live in a natural environment where things like the trees and the sky

should be viewed as languages, numbers, images, symbols, and techniques within the media

environment; not just biological objects. Fiordo (2009) adds that “clouds” are created through

media ecology. Clouds are a metaphor that point to the semantic and semiotic media that creates

the modern human environment (p. 154). He criticizes media ecology for not necessarily being

beneficial to society, as these “clouds” can ruin people’s perception of reality.

With media ecology theory, people are led to believe that media technologies have a

leading role in human affairs, but Lollar (2012) questions its role by believing it may be in

competition with human affairs (pgs. 51-52). Basically, he sums up that although media provides

culture with news and has powerful influence over culture, it also creates relevance to what is

only in the present—ultimately distracting people from events in the past. It creates the sense that

the virtual is trying to compete with reality. What people may be able to do on their own is

masked by the fact that other media can do it for them.

Future Developments

Media ecology theory is still seeing developments today and continues to make future

developments to its foundation and application. For example, learning through media ecology is

emerging in classrooms today. Kozma (1994) states that media has had a profound effect in

learning in the late twentieth century, and as technology increases in the twenty-first century, it

will have an even larger effect in learning (p. 7). People will even use it more for the mere reason

of making media more relevant. Society must adapt to the new media created through the

advancements of technology. The author brings up arguments from critics that state that learning

and media have no relation because of its negative effects, but the author refutes it by stating that

media still has an influence in learning even if it is not positive. Media’s effect on the learner can


be more beneficial in the future because “learning with media can be thought of as a

complementary process within which representations are constructed and procedures performed”

(p. 11). Other developments interested in the relation of new media and learning must pay

specific attention to the causal mechanics by which cognitive and social processes are influenced

when students interact with a particular medium (p. 13). They must also specify the appropriate

uses of the medium’s capabilities to make certain that the advancements of technology are what

affect learning.

Media ecology theory is now starting to make its way to Spanish-speaking countries. Of

course, media ecology is found everywhere and was something even before there was a word for

it, but media ecology and media culture courses are now being taught in these countries. The

courses of the theory have also made contributions to subjects such as history and math, and are

being made in other countries across the world, such as Germany and Italy (Salas, 2007, pgs. 65-

66). To understand this feat, one must note that media ecology was born out of North American

tradition and thoughts, before getting attention internationally. The global expansion was hailed

by the MEA (Media Ecology Association) conference in Mexico City, Mexico, which is the first

time the conference was held outside of the United States. The MEA is important for this theory

because it is a not-for-profit organization that promotes research, study, criticism, and

application of media ecology (p. 62).

Media ecology theory is starting to gain more prominence in Indonesia because new

media is vastly emerging there. Media highly contributes to popular culture in Indonesia and

holds a close relevance to the image of Indonesian society. There has been critical evaluation of

Indonesian popular culture of national commercial television in media ecology (Jurriëns, 2011,

p. 197). Media is either directly or indirectly responsible for the development of the problematic


dichotomy between the “ordinary people” and the “elite” in Indonesia (p. 198). The “ordinary

people” may view television as important because it teaches them about themselves and others

(p. 201). These people “work, feel, suffer, think, feel, and engage” with the world through “mass

media.” The “elite” are those creators of media, who based on their title, are the most powerful

within society. Television critics, who are actually part of the elite in media, sometimes, speak

about or on behalf of the “ordinary people” ignorantly and authoritatively (p. 201). For the most

part, it seems the developments of media ecology in Indonesia have led to the well-liked popular

culture, but it is definitely seeing an imbalance in power—which can possibly be found in other

countries with heavy new media consumption, like the United States.

Conclusion

McLuhan’s concept of media ecology theory has withstood the test of time from its

earliest conception in 1964, all the way to today. It still holds a place in human communication

because of its accuracies it presents of the human experience and interaction with media.

Research has provided the original meaning and details of the theory, further contributions and

limitations of the theory by other theorists and media ecologists, applications of the theory in

different cultures and times, criticisms of the theory, and future developments of the theory.

Media ecology theory proposes that media does not reflect, but instead influences, all aspects of

life. Its influence in cultures, societies, politics, learning, global affairs, and even other media is

what proves the definition of media ecology theory to still stand true today. The possibilities and

further development of media ecology theory are infinite because of its broad reach and

applicable concepts. Media ecology, like all theories, does have criticisms, and people either

believe a theory or they do not, but the criticisms of this theory are few and far between.

Rejection that media has influence over one’s life does not negate the theory nor does it make it


even less true, because media ecology theory was set out to provide a better understanding that

everything and everyone is part of/creates certain media environments. The theory explains that

as long as humans are around, media will exist, and therefore, an influential message will exist

because, like McLuhan says, “Media is the message.”


References

Allison, S. (2013). Youth and the (potential) power of social media. Youth Studies Australia,

32(3), 69-75.

Fiordo, R. (2009). Symbolic mediation of experience, communication, and general semantics: In

praise of clearing mediated clouds. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 66(2), 142.

Jurriëns, E. (2011). A call for media ecology. Indonesia & The Malay World, 39(114), 197-219.

Forsberg, G. E. (2009). Media ecology and theology. Journal of Communication & Religion,

32(1), 135-156.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational

technology research and development, 42(2), 7-19.

Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication. NM: Wadsworth.

Lollar, K. (2012). Binding places and time: Reflections on fluency in media ecology. ETC: A

Review of General Semantics, 69(1), 45.

McLuhan, E., & Zhang, P. (2012). Pivotal terms in media ecology a dialogue. ETC: A Review of

General Semantics, 69(3), 246.

Ohlendorf, J. D. (2008). Politics, constitutional interpretation, and media ecology: An argument

against judicial minimalism. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31(3), 1139.

Postman, N. (2000). The humanism of media ecology. Proceedings of the Media Ecology

Association, 1(6), 10-16.

Salas, A. (2007). Media ecology comes into its own. Education Digest, 72(8), 62.


Scolari, C. A. (2012). Media ecology: Exploring the metaphor to expand the theory.

Communication Theory, 22(2), 204-225. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01404.x

Stephens, N.P. (2014). Toward a more substantive media ecology: Postman’s metaphor versus

posthuman futures. International Journal of Communication.

Strate, L. (2008). Studying media as media: McLuhan and the media ecology approach.

MediaTropes, 1, 127-142.

Valcanis, T. (2011). An iphone in every hand: Media ecology, communication structures, and the

global village. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 68(1), 33.

Wanta, W., Golan, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Agenda setting and international news: Media influence

on public perceptions of foreign nations. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,

81(2), 364-377.

comm theory research paper

Documents