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

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie COMM THEORY RESEARCH PAPER

Ähnlich wie COMM THEORY RESEARCH PAPER (20)

COMM THEORY RESEARCH PAPER