"Towards a Mediological Method" by Melinda Turnley

I'm happy to say this was less painful to read than anticipated.

A prevalent theme in Turnley's piece that I think is very important for media-makers is the idea that the medium is part of the message it is communicating. The medium is not simply a means to and end. It is also a part of the end. One has to consider the most effective medium to use to convey a message, and also consider how this medium will impact the message. A motto early on when I worked at a newspaper creating multimedia content is: "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should." This is an exciting time of emerging media and it is fun to try new things and new ways of presenting information. But the creator has to be aware and critical enough to consider which way is best.

Turnley's piece fit nicely with the Vannevar Bush article. I found myself scribbling little notes in the margins while reading "Towards a Mediological Method" alluding to Bush's article, namely in her explanations of the economic and archival dimensions.

I think I was most enlightened by the explanation of the epistemological dimension. "Once a medium's methods for structuring information are culturally normed, that medium becomes associated with certain definitions of intelligence, facility, and literacy." This idea had never really occurred to me. I supposed I understood the concept on some level, but I had never really put it into words as Turnley has.This also ties into socioeconomic factors. When a certain group of people are not literate in a medium, it is often because they don't have the resources to access it. I think of the National Broadband Plan and the stories I've heard about people being at major disadvantages because they don't have easy access to high-speed Internet. People who aren't connected to the Internet all the time are kind of living in caves, so to speak.

The overlapping of the dimensions within the explanation of each was a nice parallel to the idea of media convergence and what it means and how to analyze it. With more evolved ways of communicating messages that include multiple media with multiple implications, we are forced to consider many aspects of each.

However, this overlapping makes it difficult for me to parse the many ideas in Turnley's piece. I think I walked away from reading it with an understanding of what she is talking about, but it's the kind of understanding I can't readily put into a coherent message.