Dear reader,
It's 2025, and I just decided to start a blog. One may wonder what is the reason behind such a decision, which sounds about 20 years too late: blogs are a thing of the 00s; today's digital world is ruled by video - whether it's live strams, TikToks, or Instagram reels. So, in an era dominated by short, visual content, the idea of publishing long-form text might seem outdated. Does it still make sense to write?
I argue that it does, and the reason lies in a subtle aspect of media that often goes unnoticed. We typically think of media as passive tools that simply deliver information. The word "medium" itself comes from Latin, meaning "that which stays in the middle." In the context of communication, the medium serves as the carrier of the message between the sender and the receiver, and we expect carriers to deliver messages without altering their content.
For example, if you need to tell your partner that you’ll be late for dinner, does it matter whether you call them or send a text message? If you want to read a book, you could buy or rent a physical copy, or a digital one: the content is the same. And if I wanted to share something online, I could write a blog post, record a YouTube video, or even publish it in a Twitter thread. Why should I choose one over the other? What difference does it make?
We often believe that media are merely tools for communication, and that the medium used to deliver a message doesn’t matter as much as the message itself. However, this overlooks the profound influence that different media have on how messages are perceived and experienced, and reveals a fundamental flaw in our understanding of media: contrary to what we often believe, media are not neutral. Instead, they actively participate in communication, just like the sender and the receiver.
We have an instinctive sense of this when we feel that some things are better discussed in person rather than via text. This isn’t just about feelings—it's about practicality. When conversations become nuanced and complicated, the limitations of instant messaging quickly become apparent. For instance in the example above, if you need to tell your partner you’ll be late, it really might not matter whether you call or text. But if you’ve had an argument, would you continue the discussion over text? Likely not, because you’d recognize that texting could increase the chances of misunderstandings and exacerbate the conflict. It would be more effective to resolve things in person.
It's important to note that these pitfalls aren’t due to the communication skills of the sender or the receiver, nor can they be attributed to a user's proficiency with the medium. These are inherent shortcomings of the medium itself, which may not be well-suited for certain types of communication.
I believe everyone can relate to this example because most of us have experienced the frustration of trying to express complex emotions through the linear and structured format of text. However, if we think about it more critically, we can see this issue everywhere. For instance, if I want to entertain myself, I could choose to read a book or watch a video. But why do so few people choose reading these days? Why aren’t both options chosen equally, as we might expect if the medium didn’t make a difference? If you want to learn about a topic, you could read a book or watch a documentary - but would the outcome be the same? Why? And while it’s technically possible to have a deep, meaningful, and civil discussion on Twitter, have you ever actually had one?
The reality is that the medium we choose matters just as much as the message itself. Every medium has its strengths, encouraging certain types of content while making it difficult for anything else to thrive. Take Twitch, for example—its most popular content includes chatting, gameplay, and interviews. Why? Because live streaming demands constant production, which isn’t conducive to carefully crafted, well-reasoned content. Streamers often resort to reacting to other people's material, as the format doesn’t allow for the time needed to create structured content from scratch.
On YouTube, you can find video essays since the platform preserves content, making it worth the effort to research and create more in-depth pieces. But even then, how much time is spent crafting the actual ideas versus making the video visually engaging? Similarly, it's no surprise that social media often feels like a chaotic mess—it’s designed to amplify quick, reactive content, so that’s what it generates. Meaningful discussions simply don’t fit the nature of the platform.
Media have a subtle yet powerful influence on the messages they deliver, shaping communication in ways we often overlook. This is why I argue that media aren't just passive channels—they actively shape the way we communicate. But their impact doesn’t stop there. Media influence how we think, how we view the world, and even how we interact with it.
Marshall McLuhan, in his 1964 book *Understanding Media*, famously captured this idea with his phrase, “The medium is the message.” His argument was that media don’t just carry content; they fundamentally change how we perceive and process information. By emphasizing certain senses or ways of thinking, they reshape our mental habits and alter how we engage with the world.
Media also redefine social norms and behaviors, changing the dynamics of communication by influencing both the sender and the receiver. They compress time and space, speeding up life and broadening the scope of human activity. In doing so, they construct and reflect our reality, influencing our identities and perceptions—often having a deeper effect on us than the actual content they deliver.
Take social media, for example. While it might seem like the content—photos, status updates, news articles—is what holds the most importance, it's actually the medium itself that has a deeper impact on our lives. Social media thrives on short, curated, often surface-level interactions, encouraging us to showcase a highlight reel rather than the full picture of our day-to-day experiences.
The structure of these platforms, built around likes, shares, and engagement-driven algorithms, subtly pushes us to focus on how we're perceived. This can affect our self-esteem, fuel social comparisons, and create an ongoing need for validation. It’s a clear example of how the medium itself, far more than the content we consume or post, shapes our experiences and influences our sense of self.
In short, media shape our culture. This raises an interesting question: what’s the difference between a culture built around text and one dominated by video? It’s not just about the content each promotes but also how they influence our lives and shape our worldview.
Neil Postman explores this in depth in his 1985 book *Amusing Ourselves to Death*. He argues that a culture grounded in text differs dramatically from one driven by visual media, particularly in how it affects our thinking, communication, and collective consciousness. In a text-based culture, like the print era, communication is rooted in language, logic, and a linear flow of ideas. Text demands active engagement, requiring focus and a step-by-step approach to understanding.
This promotes a culture of critical thinking, where ideas are conveyed through reasoned arguments, coherent narratives, and detailed explanations. In such a culture, public discourse prioritizes depth and clarity, as the written word encourages reflection, analysis, and complex problem-solving.
In contrast, a culture centered around visual media, like television and digital platforms, focuses on images, immediacy, and emotional appeal. These forms of media prioritize entertainment, quick consumption, and the instant satisfaction of the viewer's senses. Because visuals take precedence over text, complex ideas are often simplified into more digestible, sometimes superficial, representations. The goal is to capture attention, not necessarily to foster deep understanding.
As Postman points out, this shift erodes the quality of public discourse. Communication becomes more about style and spectacle than substance. Instead of valuing logical arguments and thorough explanations, a visually-driven culture tends to favor dramatic imagery, catchy slogans, and content designed to spark emotional reactions, often at the expense of rational thought.
This transformation has significant implications for public discourse and democratic engagement. In a text-based culture, the exchange of reasoned ideas and evidence-based arguments fosters informed decision-making and encourages a more engaged, thoughtful citizenry. People are invited to think critically and deliberate on complex issues.
However, in a visually-driven culture, discourse becomes fragmented and leans heavily toward entertainment, often undermining the depth and seriousness of public dialogue. Social and political issues are frequently oversimplified, turned into spectacles rather than topics for meaningful discussion. This shift can result in a more passive public, less capable of engaging critically with information. The focus on entertainment reduces the capacity for sustained attention and thoughtful analysis, weakening the foundation of a well-informed and active democracy.
Ultimately, Postman warns that when a culture prioritizes visual media over text, public discourse risks devolving into mere entertainment rather than serving as a platform for meaningful communication. This shift reduces the quality of democratic dialogue, as discussions become less about understanding and addressing societal issues and more about holding audience attention and providing entertainment.
This isn't just a change in how we communicate; it's a fundamental transformation in how society thinks, engages, and interacts with the world. The focus shifts from thoughtful problem-solving to superficial engagement, altering the very fabric of how we connect with each other and navigate complex challenges.
This is why I chose to write, rather than create content in the video format that dominates today. The choice of medium isn't just a formal decision—it’s deeply impactful. To sum up: media aren’t neutral. They don’t just influence the message; they shape our relationships with others and the world, playing an active role in shaping our culture.
I agree with Postman and believe that text is the medium best suited to nurture a culture grounded in rationality and logic. In contrast, I worry that the current digital landscape, centered around short-form video, inevitably reduces public discourse to shallow, inconsequential entertainment.
This was a long post, I know, especially for a first blog entry. If you've made it this far, thank you for your attention. And if you didn't, that's okay too. But I encourage you to ask yourself—did you not want to read this far, or were you actually unable to? If it's the latter, it might be worth considering whether the media you regularly consume are doing more than just entertaining you—perhaps they're shaping your ability to engage deeply in ways you haven't yet realized.
Vale,
Davide