Sarnoff vs. McLuhan

Though McLuhan strongly disagrees with him, I actually connected with General David Sarnoff's statement that "the products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value". For years I've read stories whose main message is a warning toward its readers about the dangers of technology on society and societal values; Ray Bradbury is the first author that comes to mind when I think of critics of vastly expansive technology. True, perhaps certain kinds of technology have made us increasingly antisocial and non-verbal, but that's only because people have used them to isolate themselves from other people. The people are the ones who wield power over technology, over the medium; it all depends on how they use it. For example, some people choose to use television to air mind-numbing programs that require no thought and no energy. However, other people use television to air informative programs, programs that require you to use your brain to process the information that you've just learned. Even programs like game shows such as Jeopardy challenge you to think. It's all about how you use the medium, and I don't agree with McLuhan's ludicrous way of comparing Sarnoff's statement to chicken pox, or apple pie. If the subject of Sarnoff's statement is about science and modern technology, how could you possibly twist his words into an analogy about disease or food? To me it just didn't make much sense. As a matter of fact, McLuhan directly contradicts Sarnoff's own words with this quote, in which he tries applying Sarnoff's statement to firearms:

"Again, 'Firearms are in themselves neither good nor bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.' That is, if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good. If the TV tube tires the right ammunition at the right people it is good."

Sarnoff isn't trying to make a direct claim that the products of modern science are either specifically good or specifically bad; he's trying to claim that the value of these products is judged upon how we use them. Nothing is ever simply "good" or "bad"- it's not that black and white, and I believe that is the point that Sarnoff was trying to get across. Is it narcissistic to believe we are always in total control? Maybe, but then again, we are the ones who create the medium itself.

I don't have any sort of video or picture to go along with my post, I just thought I'd provide somewhat of a counter-argument to some of McLuhan's thoughts.