Blog Post #4: Applying McLuhan's Hot and Cool Theory to Podcasting
Hi everyone!
For this blog post, I am interested in outlining Marshall Mcluhan’s Hot and Cool media theory. In particular, this post will use his theory to dissect the similarities and differences between how radio and podcasting are typically consumed in contemporary culture. Ultimately, the goal of this post is to illustrate how modern-day podcasting’s technological affordances allow for a more cool communicative method in comparison to traditional radio broadcasting.
McLuhan's Hot and Cool media theory categorizes different media forms based on how the receiver experiences its content. Specifically, for McLuhan, different media forms demand varying degrees of audience participation which impacts how one extracts meaning. Hot media is largely defined by its “high definition” as it focuses on one singular sense (ex: auditory, visual, etc). This intensification of a single sense facilitates the demand of a viewer’s attention as it does not leave much context to be completed by the audience. For example, McLuhan considers radio, cinema, newspapers, and books to be hot media. Thus, hot media can be understood as requiring less audience participation in order to interpret its intended meaning. Contrastingly, cool media is defined by “low definition” since it demands the engagement of multiple senses to perceive its meaning. As such, cool media requires much more conscious participation by the reader to garner its value (Herman, 2022). Audiences’ more active participation is indicative of their more enhanced need to complete gaps in the content. For instance, Mchlun categorizes television, speech, and telephone as cool media forms.
Additionally, I think it may be interesting to apply this theory to how radio broadcasting’s “hot” format has shifted with the popularization of podcasting. First, there are parallels between radio and podcasting regarding their characterization as hot media. Particularly, both radio and podcasting focus on a singular sense to convey their message to the audience: auditory. This limits the room for audience participation between the sender and receiver as its message is formulated with a passive listener in mind. In this way, podcasting can be understood as having hot media affordances due to its similarities to radio production. Although, as podcasting becomes a more desired form of entertainment in our culture, it has strayed from this traditional broadcasting model. For instance, many popular podcasts have implemented a visual component by uploading a filmed version of their podcasts to streaming services such as YouTube. Thus, a podcast’s combination of auditory and visual elements reflects characteristics of cool media as it requires the audience to participate with multiple senses. Additionally, traditional radio broadcasting differs from podcasting in that it typically has a more stationary location. In other words, the practice of listening to the radio is most common within the barriers of motorized vehicles, whereas podcasts are most typically acquired on cell phones. This increased mobilization causes podcasts to be cooler than radio as it makes the audience more susceptible to outside sources and/or multitasking while consuming its content. Overall, podcasting can be perceived as a cooler media format than traditional radio broadcasting as it enhances the audience's use of senses and mobility.
Questions:
- Do you agree that podcasts should be considered a cooler media form than radio? Why or why not?
- Do you think that podcasting’s implementation of a visual component enhances your interpretation of the content?
Through my experience, I personally think podcasts should not be considered a cooler media form than radio. The reason for this is as although they have a visual component, it is rare I find myself actually using it. I tend to use it in the same form of radio and listen to podcasts on a drive. Now, if you do watch it you may argue that it is similar to television as you are engaging in sight and hearing. However, I argue against this because the content you watch on television is more complex and advanced. It requires you to be fully engaged in understanding what is going on. You cannot just listen to the television and fully comprehend what is happening. In contrast, you can do that with a podcast. You can only engage in listening and completely understand what is going on. Why? Because in podcasts, there is no action going on. It is simply just people sitting down and talking with a microphone. The visual component is not necessary. All it really does is match a face to the voice. For me, the podcasts I listen to are ones where I usually know who they are. Therefore, I know their voice and face, so the visual aspect becomes useless to me. Therefore, I only find myself engaging in one single sense. That being said, I do not think the implementation of visual media enhances my interpretation of the content.
ReplyDelete