When Marshall McLuhan equated the medium to the message almost half a century ago, people thought he was crazy. How can a medium (such as a newspaper) be the same as the message that’s carried within the medium? Of course, these days, it isn’t hard to see what McLuhan was talking about, especially in Singapore. Our mainstream media is widely accepted to be the message of the powers there be. You don’t even need to read what’s contained in the medium. Mention newspapers like the Straits Times and Today to any ordinary Singaporean and one is likely to get responses such as “government propaganda”.

The same of course can be said for the Singaporean cyberspace. The government has acknowledged that the cyberspace mainly consists of anti-establishment messages, and in the minds of many (including the government), the mere mention of things like blogs or online forum will conjure the image of “critical comments” and “anti-government messages”. McLuhan wasn’t so crazy after all. He was just ahead of his time.

If we broaden McLuhan’s definition of medium, we can then probably apply McLuhan’s theory to the latest uproar on Singaporean cyberspace. According to dictionary.com, the definitions of the word “medium” are as follows:

–noun
1. a middle state or condition; mean.
2. something intermediate in nature or degree.
3. an intervening substance, as air, through which a force acts or an effect is produced.
4. the element that is the natural habitat of an organism.
5. surrounding objects, conditions, or influences; environment.
6. an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished: Words are a medium of expression.
7. one of the means or channels of general communication, information, or entertainment in society, as newspapers, radio, or television.
8. Biology. the substance in which specimens are displayed or preserved.
9. Also called culture medium. Bacteriology. a liquid or solidified nutrient material suitable for the cultivation of microorganisms.
10. a person through whom the spirits of the dead are alleged to be able to contact the living.
11. Fine Arts. a. Painting. a liquid with which pigments are mixed.
b. the material or technique with which an artist works: the medium of watercolor.
12. a size of printing paper, 181/2 × 231/2 in. (47 × 60 cm) in England, 18 × 23 to 19 × 25 in. (46 × 58 to 48 × 64 cm) in America.
13. Chiefly British. a size of drawing or writing paper, 171/2 × 22 in. (44 × 56 cm).
14. Also called medium strip. Midland U.S. median strip.
15. in medium, Movies, Television. with the principal actors in the middle distance: The scene was shot in medium.
–adjective 16. about halfway between extremes, as of degree, amount, quality, position, or size: Cook over medium heat. He is of medium height.

I’ve bolded definition 6 and 7. McLuhan was probably talking about definition 7 when discussing about medium. If we expand the meaning of the word medium to definition 6 as well, we can probably say that the human being too can be considered a medium of expression. That being the case, we can now ponder about what Baey Yum Keng’s famous quote in the Straits Times last Saturday – “The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.”

I’m not the first blogger to talk about this. Ian and Bart have weighed in their opinion on the issue, with both of them having the opinion that identity (or in the context of this entry, the expanded meaning of the word medium) is important. So, who’s right?

From the McLuhan’s perspective (which probably is quite similar to mine), both parties are right. If the medium (identity in this case) is indeed the message, then both must be equally important. The content of the message is important because the strength of the argument in that message has the persuasive ability to influence the reader. On the other hand, identity too is important as well because the identity of the person who sends out the message gives a clue to the intention of the message sender. As an example, a prisoner awaiting execution for mass murder may make a completely intelligent, robust and excellent argument against the death penalty. However, should the message be accepted? Is the true intention of the prisoner for the greater good of society, or just to save his own skin?

The danger of putting identity on the same pedestal of importance as the message is bias. This is most evident in the most extreme anti-government propaganda websites (my favourite example is Singapore Election Watch). The people operating the Singapore Election Watch have an extremely negative view of the government (and the PAP by extension). The bias is so strong that every message given out by the government is met with skepticism and derison. The message, no matter how strong, thus become irrelevant anymore.

Ultimately, I think that identity is not unimportant at all. It does help one to make a better judgement about the motivations any message put out by a person. Even for an anonymous posting online, most people would subsciously evaluate the message for clues about the identity of the person who posted it and make a final judgement after considering both the message and the identity. This is perhaps something that’s innate to human nature. Therefore, I think it’s better not to go anonymous when putting out one’s message. It’s best to be upfront with one’s real identity. It’s not as if there will be a threat to life and limb when blogging in Singapore about most matters (at least, not yet, and I hope, never).