I feel like the biggest argument that I got out of this article is how we perceive or interpret media. In order to understand how media works, we have to have experience analyzing other media. If someone is refusing to look at media and is told to interpret a piece of media, how can they fully understand the message? We can choose what we see by closing and opening our eyes, but we cannot choose what hear; we cannot open and close our ears. Perhaps we should look at the world the way we listen to the world, openly without a filter.

As in terms of visual media, we seek uniformity, continuity, and connectedness. We seek media that is informative yet visually pleasing. We have trouble believing things without seeing them. If we hear something, we investigate what could have caused the sound but if we cannot find the culprit, we assume it was all in our mind. We need visual proof that something exist or that something is occurring. For example, it took awhile for the world to realize what was going on in concentration camps during the Holocaust. There were rumors of the awful things that were taking place in the concentration camps but not visual evidence. People can misinterpret what someone says and then the message is miscommunicated to others, but with visual media the content stays the same. Everyone can interpret a picture a different way but the media itself remains the same.

I feel like people are selective on what they choose to look at. Everyone likes to look at things in their comfort zone, things that are appealing to them. People don’t like to look at things that make them think, that make them confused, or make them feel any sort of negative emotion.

I feel like media is just an extension of something else. Like McLuhan said, “the book is an extension of the eye.” I feel like media is an extension of our thoughts, older techniques of media (writing as opposed to printing), and an extension of how we perceive the world.