Medium theory is a theory of communication that says the Medium through which information or knowledge is shared is far more impactful than the actual content. Basically, it does not matter what you are saying. It matters how you are saying it. One of the most important figures in discussing Medium Theory is the communications theorist and economist Harold Innis. He developed this theory that communication always has a bias to it because of his personal experience as a Canadian consuming American media. His theory supports the idea that communication has a bias because of the unproportionate nature of media. This part of Innis’s theory is still relevant but has been shaped slightly from his original concern over consumption of certain media over others. The theory applies better to a concern of bias across social status than it does on purely location factors.
The best example of bias in communication is the creation of the printing press and the Gutenberg Bible. The invention of the printing press caused mass changes throughout society including huge revelations around religion, but just the fact that words could now be material objects brought the question of who could have them. In the example of the Gutenberg Bible, this was one of the first times that a religious text was available for reading by an individual and not interpreted for them by another member of the church. This gave individuals the ability to interpret the religious text for themselves and make their own opinions or analysis of religion. Quickly this led to individuals in society with money to purchase writings such as the Gutenberg Bible to own, limiting the access to those without the ability to purchase the text. Also the fact that a majority of the lower class was not educated and could not read or write. This created a society where only the advantaged individuals who would afford a book and then actually be able to read it which left the disadvantaged individuals are left unable to participate in this culturally shifting moment.
When putting this example into the context of questioning if the medium is more valuable than the message, one can compare the differences of what it meant to read the Bible or have it interpreted for you. It does not necessarily need to change the meaning or the content of what knowledge is being absorbed, but it implies differences in the individual based on how they are accessing that information. This can be compared to today in many different ways. While there are certain sources of knowledge or information that are behind pay walls, The New York Times newspaper for example, we live in a time where the mass majority of individuals have access to mass amounts of information. Since the availability of information does not accurately reflect social status, it has shifted to being the exact source of the information to be more of an identifying factor. What news source or location you read the information or gain the knowledge has more of a meaning than the actual information itself.
