When reading “The Medium of the Message” by Marshall McCulhan, I found the paragraphs about General Sarnoff confusing. General Sarnoff States ““We are too prone to maket technologicalinstruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The productsof modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they areused that determines their value.” This is statement is something, I believe, most people can agree with. A Lot of the blame for our modern misfortunes is placed upon the instruments we use instead of the ones using them. Though, Mr. McCulhan does not completely agree with this statement. He argues that General Sarnoff’s statement ” ignores the nature of the medium, of any and all media”.
What is the nature of the medium? Is the nature of the medium entirely separate from our control? Is it something we entirely ignore when considering a decision made? These kinds of questions came to my mind, because he does not elaborate on the conversation. Personally, this small excerpt felt out of place, not unnecessary, but not cohesive to the topic at hand. He ended the paragraph by saying. “It has never occurred to General Sarnoff that any technology could do anything but add itself on to what we already are.” In which I interpreted that they’re on the same page. As technology continues to grow and evolve our true nature does not change. Which is why we should be responsible for how we impose our will on technological advancements.
