sense that a message that someone loves us has power and meaning apart
from whether we receive it in face-to-face interaction, by letter, by phone,
by e-mail, or by videotape’ (45). The message seems to be much more
important than differences between the media. Using this metaphor,
people believe that a movie can be made of a book, or that an interview
can be transcribed into a journal article which has the same meaning.
When we relate a television programme to a friend who hasn’t seen it, we
recount the content, the plot, the actors, etc. Meyrowitz points out that the
greater part of media studies have adopted this metaphor with its focus
on content and thereby overlooked medium directly.
The next two kinds of metaphors are only found in mediated interaction.
Medium as language treats a medium like a languagewith its own gram-
mar. This is a grammar of production variables such as font type, camera
angle, sound reverberation, which are peculiar to mediated interaction,
or, as Meyrowitz proffers, ‘it is impossible for us to “cut to a close-up” or
“dissolve to the beach” in everyday interactions’ (47). Conversely, we
consciously associate the meaning of a word, image or sound with its
grammar or presentation. In a war movie, for example, ‘we rarely see
prolonged close-ups of “the enemy” but see numerous of “our soldiers”,
who, regardless of their actions, we sympathize with, as does the lingering
camera’ (48).
The last metaphoric perspective which Meyrowitz discusses is of
medium-as-environment.^25 This is different from a media ‘container’ or
conduit which carries or transmits a message. Rather a medium-as-
environment comprises the fixed characteristics peculiar to a medium that
make it unique, ‘regardless of content and grammar choices’ (48). These
relate to (1) the type of sensory information the medium can transmit,
(2) the speed and immediacy that is allowed a communicative event,
(3) whether it is uni-directional, bi-directional or multi-directional,
(4) whether the interaction is sequential or simultaneous, (5) the physical
requirements for using the medium, (6) the ease of learning to use the
medium.^26
Like McLuhan, Meyrowitz maintains that individuals are generally
not aware of extended mediums and the way they shape experience and
perception. It is possible to be conscious of medium grammars, and when
they are pointed out, they can be seen easily. Medium-as-environment is
a different matter, however. Meyrowitz would agree with McLuhan that
‘[e]nvironments are not passive wrappings, but active processes which
work us over completely, massaging the ratio of the senses and imposing
their silent assumptions. But environments are invisible. Their ground-
rules, pervasive structure, and overall patterns elude easy perception’
(McLuhan, 1967: 68). However, unlike McLuhan, Meyrowitz stresses that
to understand an individual communicative event, all three kinds of
medium metaphors need to be considered together, but that they are
typically considered in isolation, by distinct research communities.116 COMMUNICATION THEORYHolmes-04.qxd 2/15/2005 1:00 PM Page 116