The Medium Matters More Than Ever

Abstract

The theoretical domain of communication and media studies, encompassing the scholarship of Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, and Stuart Hall, among others, has provided valuable insights for navigating the multiple, complex media-rich landscapes in which users find themselves immersed. In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964), McLuhan cautioned that the gradual shift toward an electronic society engenders significant implications for how information is rapidly disseminated and received, further indicating that a heightened degree of critical cognizance is required to manage this profusion of information today. This article explores how the notable theories of McLuhan, Innis, and Hall have contributed to the development of critical media literacy. It argues that their work remains essential to contemporary media ecosystems, particularly for understanding how technologies such as social media and Generative AI shape knowledge and influence individual opinion (Kellner & Share, 2007, p. 59).

Keywords

Media Theory, Critical Media Literacy, Communication Studies, Media Ecosystems

Introduction

In Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man (1964), distinguished Canadian media scholar Marshall McLuhan argued that the gradual shift toward an electronic society has significant implications for how information is rapidly disseminated and received. He further argued that a heightened degree of critical cognizance is required to manage this profusion of information. Today, while McLuhan’s recommendations continue to carry weight, a range of supports and frameworks have emerged to help individuals navigate the expanding volume of information across media. Within this context, media literacy is understood not as a pedagogical approach, but as a set of learned capacities, defined as “the knowledge, skills and competencies that are required in order to use and interpret media” (Buckingham, 2003, p. 36). However, a further development within this field is critical media literacy, which “explores human interaction with media objects, texts, and structures by critically questioning representation, ideology, and economic issues within the media that explicitly and implicitly impact human social relations” (Gennaro et al., 2024, pp. 17-18). It expands traditional notions of media literacy, such as practical skills for identifying misinformation and AI fakes. It does so by offering a more rigorous understanding of how media technologies – including social media and generative AI – shape knowledge production and influence individual and collective perspectives, while foregrounding the role of power (Kellner & Share, 2007, p. 59). The affordances of critical media literacy, therefore, extend beyond identifying misinformation and disinformation to foster a broader, more holistic understanding of media forms and their societal impacts (Kellner & Share, 2007, 2019; Higdon & Huff, 2022; Kersch & Lesley, 2019). In this sense, the development of critical media literacy can be understood as a direct response to the challenges posed by an increasingly media-dominated world (Kellner & Share, 2007, 2019). Building on this foundation, critical media literacy extends McLuhan’s focus on the effects of the medium by explicitly foregrounding questions of power, ideology, and social justice.

Drawing on the contributions of Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, and Stuart Hall – three notable scholars whose works span the disciplines of communications, media, and cultural studies – this article synthesizes key theories that together form the foundation of critical media analysis. It argues, first, for the value of tracing the historical and genealogical progression of McLuhan’s and Innis’ theories, which established foundational understandings of the media systems and structures that shape society. Second, it emphasizes the importance of Hall’s contributions to cultural studies in illuminating the construction and interpretation of meaning, thereby supporting the framing of critical media literacy as an essential set of competencies. Taken together, the theories of McLuhan, Innis, and Hall establish the conceptual foundation of critical media literacy by explaining how media forms shape social organization, how power structures communication, and how meaning is produced (as explored by Kellner and Share (2019), Gennaro et al. (2024), Kersch and Lesley (2019), Thevenin (2022), and Higdon and Huff (2022), amongst others). This article further argues that critical media literacy represents a natural progression, as it supports the growing needs of citizens in a social media and AI-dominated world.

This article begins with a brief overview of the history and theories central to communications studies and critical theory that have shaped our current understanding of critical media literacy. One of its most salient aspects is a focus on social institutions and the implications of power in the crafting, sending, and reception of messages (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 9; Kersch & Lesley, 2019; Thevenin, 2022; Higdon & Huff, 2022). This focus underscores the importance of examining critical media literacy from a communications studies perspective, which facilitates awareness of how knowledge and meaning are constructed and disseminated (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 375). This concern with communication complexity and meaning-making is echoed in McLuhan’s work, where he observes:

There is a kind of illusion in the world we live in that communication is something that happens all the time, that it’s normal. And when it doesn’t happen, this is horrendous. Actually, communication is an exceedingly difficult activity. In the sense of a mere point-to-point correspondence between what is said, done, and thought and felt between people—this is the rarest thing in the world. If there is the slightest tangential area of touch, agreement, and so on among people, that is communication in a big way. The idea of complete identity is unthinkable. Most people have the idea of communication as something matching between what is said and what is understood. In actual fact, communication is making. (1997, p. 69)

McLuhan’s words emphasize the intricate art of communication, illustrating that it is often a deeply personal experience shaped by a myriad of tangible, indistinguishable, and societal elements (1997, p. 69).  Extending this insight, McLuhan’s claim that the “medium is the message” emphasizes that the form through which a message passes matters more than its content (1964, pp. 8-9). And while McLuhan draws attention to how media forms shape perception and environments, Hall’s (1980) Encoding/Decoding model extends the perspective by examining how meaning is actively produced, circulated and interpreted within these structures. Consequently, by emphasizing how media messages are produced and interpreted, Hall’s model connects directly to critical media literacy by emphasizing how social norms and meanings take shape through media texts (Kellner & Share, 2019; Higdon & Huff, 2022). This connection is evident in the focus on the ways media messages are carefully produced to serve the interests of particular groups and individuals. Together, a clear understanding of media environments – particularly the role of power in shaping them – and the ability to analyze how media messages are constructed form the conceptual foundation of critical media literacy (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 8).

Critical Media Literacy: A Brief Overview

The Theoretical and Institutional Foundations of Critical Media Literacy

     Before exploring how the key theories of McLuhan, Innis, and Hall contributed to the development of critical media literacy as an essential skill, it is helpful to begin with a historical overview as presented by selected scholars in the field. According to Kellner and Share (2019), the domain of critical media literacy has theoretical underpinnings in “critical communications theories and cultural studies, fields of critical inquiry that began in the 20^th century in Europe and continue to grow with new critiques of media and society” (p. 9). These two fields offer central frameworks for understanding how dominant ideologies and meanings are produced through media messages (Kellner & Share, 2019; Thevenin, 2022; Butler, 2019; Arke, 2013). In addition, Kellner and Share (2019) note that critical media literacy is supported by inclusive approaches rooted in social development and social change, as well as in democratic engagement and informed citizenship (p. 9). Within this broader intellectual context, the influence of cultural studies is evident in multiple theoretical traditions concerned with culture, power and representation. These include “the Frankfurt School, Birmingham School, feminism, queer theory, critical race theory, critical [Indigenous] theory, and [other approaches that] examine the [social] impact of the culture industries” (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 18).

Critical theory has shaped critical media literacy by facilitating reflection on the dominant social norms that influence media production and interpretation (Higdon & Huff, 2022, p. 131). As Higdon and Huff (2022) note, a central feature of critical theory is its alignment with social justice. Viewed through this lens, media messages are unpacked to identify which groups might benefit from – or might be disadvantaged by – the ideas being advanced (Higdon & Huff, 2022, p. 131). Critical media literacy, therefore, draws on interdisciplinary traditions concerned with power, race, class, and representation (Higdon & Huff, 2022; Kellner & Share, 2007). This perspective guides media users in examining how various media forms – including social media and generative AI tools – influence personal beliefs and draw attention to the concentration of power within society and across media ecosystems (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 23).     

The North American History of Critical Media Literacy

In addition to theoretical developments, US organizations such as the National Association for Media Literacy Education (NAMLE) and the Center for Media Literacy (CML) have positioned critical media literacy as a continually evolving educational progression intended to teach individuals how to meaningfully engage with and evaluate media content and messages (Thevenin, 2022, p. 19). A central element of this approach is the understanding that critical media literacy is not a swift undertaking marked by a fixed end point, but a lifelong pedagogical endeavour that can positively impact individuals’ personal and professional lives while fostering engaged and informed democratic citizenship (Thevenin, 2022). This perspective foregrounds the broader purpose of critical media literacy education as a “practical pedagogy” (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. xi) that can be harnessed to support individuals in reflecting meaningfully on their interactions with and through media. In practice, organizations such as NAMLE and the CML have translated theoretical commitments to understanding how power shapes media texts and environments into concrete organizational and pedagogical practice. Efforts such as these have played a central role in advancing critical media literacy as an essential skill for fostering lifelong critical reflection on how media technologies – particularly social media and generative AI  – shape our lives and society.

At the same time, the visibility and influence of these organizations have not led to consistent, system-wide adoption of a formal media literacy curriculum. Generally, media literacy education has been evident within the North American context over the past few decades – though unevenly and often on a limited scale – particularly through the establishment of organizations such as NAMLE and the CML  (Thevenin, 2022, p. 19; Kersch & Lesley, 2019, p. 39; Cubbage, 2022). Despite these developments, scholars including Arke (2013, p. 96), Kellner and Share (2005, p. 369), and Butler (2019, p. 7) note that media literacy has not been well integrated into U.S. education curricula, although it has received greater emphasis in Canada, the UK, and Australia. Canada emerged as a leader in the introduction of media literacy education in the early 1980s, beginning with a partnership between the Jesuit Communication Project and Ontario’s Association for Media Literacy (AML) (Kellner & Share, 2005, p. 369; Arke, 2013, p. 99). This led to the formal integration of media literacy into Ontario’s Language curriculum (Arke, 2013, p. 99). The AML incorporated elements of critical literacy and cultural studies into its eight key concepts from the inception, including coding and encoding, audience, representation, and economic implications (Association for Media Literacy, n.d.). Taken together, these geographical patterns indicate that, although media literacy – and in particular critical media literacy – emerged in North America decades ago, it has not been consistently implemented or maintained as a robust focus within US education curricula (Arke, 2013; Kellner & Share, 2005, 2007, 2019). Despite this uneven implementation, however, critical media literacy remains significant both theoretically and pedagogically, particularly as reflected in the AML’s core concepts. As Gennaro et al. (2024) note, it “engages individuals in their concrete situations, challenging them to question their role in these situations and empowering them to engage as active meaning-makers in future situations” (Gennaro et al., 2024, p. 18). Through this approach, individuals shift from passive consumers to more active producers of meaning, critically examining how and why diverse media texts and forms shape society in unique ways.

Making the Case for Critical Media Literacy Through Marshall McLuhan

As a theorist of media ecology, Marshall McLuhan advanced several ideas central to media studies. Although his theories paid little attention to issues of social power, which remain central to the field of critical media literacy (Higdon & Huff, 2022; Kellner & Share, 2019), his framing of media as environments provides an essential starting point for understanding what media is and how diverse media systems and structures shape society and communication. Three central features of Marshall McLuhan’s scholarship – his claim that “the medium is the message” (McLuhan, 1997, p. 8), his four Laws of Media also known as the Tetrad (McLuhan, 1977, p. 320), and his notion that technology is an extension of the self (McLuhan, 1997, pp. 121-22) – offer insight into how media systems have been shaped. Taken together, these three ideas situate McLuhan’s contributions as foundational to the media studies traditions from which critical media literacy emerged. In a nutshell, McLuhan’s work established the basis for understanding how media shape perception and social organization. Critical media literacy later built on this foundation by focusing directly on power, ideology, and social consequences (Gennaro et al., 2024; Kellner & Share, 2019).      

McLuhan’s Insightful Adage: “The Medium Is the Message”

Critical media literacy has been classified as a form of “public pedagogy” for navigating the proliferation of electronic information across media environments (Gennaro et al., 2024, p. 18; Kellner & Share, 2007, 2019). This framing aligns with McLuhan’s theory that media forms shape perception, understanding, and social organization. His well-known assertion, “The medium is the message” (1964, p. 7), together with the equally important second half of his statement, “and the user is the content” (Forsdale, 1978), provides valuable insight. The first assertion suggests that the medium is the most significant factor in how a message is transmitted and interpreted (McLuhan, 1964, p. 8). A medium can therefore be understood as an instrument that enables communication while also shaping how information is perceived (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 16). Accordingly, the characteristics of a medium influence how messages are conveyed and experienced by audiences (McLuhan, 1964). The second half of McLuhan’s statement further suggests that media environments reshape human behaviour and social relations, such that users themselves become part of what media communicate. From a critical media literacy perspective, this insight highlights how interactions with media technologies shape individuals’ lived experiences. It underscores an important point: although audiences may interpret media differently, meaning also emerges through the interaction between media forms and their users—an idea consistent with McLuhan’s view that media shape the conditions under which communication and understanding take place. Building on this insight, Gennaro et al. (2024) emphasize that understanding the construction of meaning is central to critical media literacy because it encourages individuals to reflect on how their lived experiences are continually shaped by media (p. 18). This reflective process aligns with critical media literacy’s broader commitment to social justice.

If media shape how meaning is produced and interpreted, it is also necessary to consider the specific codes and conventions through which they communicate. As Higdon and Huff (2022) explain, “Media messages are given meaning through the use of codes and conventions that comprise genres that are unique to each medium” (pp. 128–29). These medium-specific principles offer insight into the complexities of communication by illustrating that messages can remain ambiguous without appropriate context (McLuhan, 1997; Higdon & Huff, 2022, p. 129; Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 18). In this context, McLuhan argues that language itself is a medium, since it drives communication and shapes how interactions occur (McLuhan, 1997, p. 6). Accordingly, the form of a medium shapes its content and creates distinct possibilities for how communication is interpreted (1997, p. 8). 

McLuhan’s adage (1964, p. 7) is especially relevant to contemporary platforms such as social media and generative artificial intelligence (AI). From a critical media literacy perspective, “the medium is the message” helps explain how these technologies shape beliefs and influence the distribution and concentration of social power (Kellner & Share, 2019; Marwick, 2018). In this context, the adage encourages us to view the medium not simply as a conduit for a message, but as the message itself. If the medium is inseparable from the message, critical media literacy therefore raises conceptual questions about media production and social justice by encouraging reflection on the significance of the medium and whose interests particular media serve (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 8). A defining feature of AI technologies is that they are based on human-designed neural networks, which are not inherently artificial (Sharples, 2023; Hooshyar et al., 2024). Generative AI, in particular, has been described as “a class of technology that uses machine learning techniques to learn from data similar to how the human brain processes information” (Peebles & Snyder, 2024, p. 1). Yet, despite these defining characteristics, AI remains ambiguous in educational contexts. It is often cast as an innocuous, organic technology that seeks to improve learning conditions (Selwyn, 2019). This ambiguity has sparked debates about whether AI’s complex technical nature – though derived from human design – has positive or negative impacts on education. While technology enthusiasts often herald the opportunities AI presents for customized and individualized learning (Barrera Castro et al., 2024; Mittal et al., 2024), skeptics instead seek to unpack the underlying social implications of AI in education (Selwyn, 2019). Applying “the medium is the message” to generative AI tools provides a way to move beyond the debate by putting critical media literacy into practice, thus encouraging examination of how messages transmitted through technological media may be manipulated, constrained, or flattened by the logics of the medium itself. McLuhan’s discussion of contemporary technologies, particularly automation, speaks directly to this issue. He observes that media users rarely blame machines themselves; rather, “what one did with the machine, that was its meaning or message” (McLuhan, 1964, p. 7). In other words, the significance of a technology lies not only in the machine itself but in how it shapes human activity. Building on this insight, critical media literacy highlights how contemporary technologies actively shape social practices and meanings within cultural and institutional contexts where power is concentrated.      

McLuhan’s Tetrad: The Laws of Media

McLuhan’s (1977) Tetrad, which delineates the four Laws of Media, is widely regarded as a foundational model in communication studies. As McLuhan (1977) explains, media possess four major attributes that produce an array of outcomes, typically affecting communication, well-being, and existence (p. 320). These Laws of Media imply that media “enhance”, “obsolesce”, “retrieve”, and “reverse” (McLuhan, 1977, p. 320). Collectively, these laws offer insight into how media can function as extensions of the self, render previous media obsolete, recover forgotten functions, and, at times, reverse into the opposite of their original purpose (McLuhan, 1977, p. 320). The Tetrad is particularly salient because it illustrates how different media enable distinct interactions and experiences. For example, the first principle – that media enhance – a prosthetic leg is an object that enables movement for a paraplegic individual, thereby offering an improved sense of mobility. The second principle – that media obsolesce – can be illustrated by the payphone, which has become antiquated. To exemplify the third principle – that media retrieve – the instant camera, a medium that was once popular decades ago, has returned in a contemporary, updated form. Lastly, the fourth principle – that media reverse when pushed to their limits – a sports car pushed to a maximum speed of 295 kilometres per hour can literally “flip” (McLuhan, 1977, p. 320). In doing so, it undermines the very safety features a car is meant to embody, and places the driver’s life in danger. Understanding how media operate according to these laws is relevant to critical media literacy because it underscores that media texts, technologies, and ecosystems are not isolated from society; rather, they are deeply embedded in relations of power that shape meaning and representation (Gennaro et al., 2024, p. 18). For example, Herman and Chomsky’s (2010) “Propaganda Model” (see the following section) depicts mass communication systems as part of a broader media ecosystem that operates through structured power relations, shaping how meaning and representation circulate in public discourse. While these systems provide information to audiences, they also operate within institutional constraints that shape how information is presented and interpreted (Herman & Chomsky, 2010), thereby influencing how meaning is constructed. Once we understand this collectively as media users, our goal becomes to develop critical awareness of media effects and use it to our advantage, rather than passively consuming (Kellner & Share, 2005, 2007, 2019). This perspective enables clearer assessment of how different media forms may genuinely enhance society while minimally disrupting human functioning (Gennaro et al., 2024, p. 18). By contrast, large-scale disruption – such as that described in the Propaganda Model – signals a breakdown in the balance implied in the Tetrad – namely, the productive coexistence between humans and media technologies (McLuhan, 1964).

Technology as an Extension of the Self

McLuhan’s (1997) assertion that media are ubiquitous and highly influential because they extend the self is the final foundational idea discussed here. The notion that technology is an extension of the human (McLuhan, 1997, p. 121) underscores the widespread and dynamic nature of media while inviting reflection on the complex relationship between humans and evolving media technologies. McLuhan (1997) perceives electronic media as extending and enhancing human capacity (p. 121), suggesting that they hold significant potential to improve human functioning through greater efficiency and expanded opportunities. Such opportunities include enhanced communication, which McLuhan (1997) notes is made possible through media such as television and radio (p. 123). Yet, with such advancements come concerns about how media and technology are rapidly transforming society (McLuhan, 1997, p. 125). The obsolescence of earlier technologies and modes of communication (McLuhan, 1977) generates uncertainty about optimal ways to cope with and manage electronic information. Together, these dynamics underscore the indelible and pervasive effects of electronic media on everyday life. McLuhan (1964) therefore advises that it is imperative to understand the impacts of electronic media and their role in enhancing human function. Although this position does not explicitly address the social justice goals of critical media literacy, it nonetheless prompts individuals to approach contemporary media technologies as unfamiliar objects. Viewing media in this way allows us to draw on Kellner and Share’s (2019, p. 8) discussion of the “politics of representation,” since technologies that extend human capacities also extend particular values, perspectives and ideologies. Thus, questions of representation become central. These concerns are closely linked to McLuhan’s notion of technology as an “extension of self,” prompting us to ask what specific media technologies enhance and, as the Tetrad suggests, what they render obsolete. At the same time, we must consider “what values, points of view, and ideologies are represented or missing from” (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 8) these technologies and their promises of enhancement. This stance also encourages an examination of the origins, purposes, and effects of media (McLuhan, 1964). Reflecting on the idea of the global village, McLuhan (1964) asks, “Is there an instance of any culture that understood the technology that sustained its structure and was prepared to keep it that way? If so, that would be an instance of values or reasoned preference” (p. 101). In essence, technology should serve humans by enhancing existing capabilities rather than replacing them entirely, reinforcing the need for a fruitful coexistence between humans and media – a principle reflected in the Tetrad and aligned with critical media literacy’s emphasis on social justice (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 9). Such coexistence encourages the productive use of media technologies to create alternative representations that more fully reflect diverse lived experiences.

Connections Between Harold Innis, Herman & Chomsky, and Critical Media Literacy

The contributions of Harold Innis, particularly his work on time- and space-bias, demonstrate the impact of historical communication media on society. Essential to Innis’ work is the idea that different media possess distinct biases that, in turn, shape social organization and cultural norms (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 42). For Innis, time-based media are associated with tangible, durable media such as clay and stone tablets that transcend time, thereby representing time bias (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 42; Noble, 2014). Conversely, space-biased media are associated with forms such as paper, radio, and television: flexible and easily transportable, thus representing space bias (Gasher et al., 2016, pp. 42-43). The key distinction between these two biases lies in how cultures preserve and transmit knowledge (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 43). In efforts to uphold cultural values, oral societies place significant emphasis on the conservation of knowledge over time. Written cultures, on the other hand, reflect space bias, as information can be transmitted and received more easily through mechanisms that prioritize speed (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 43).

Innis’ concepts of time- and space-biased media can help explain the development of critical media literacy. As written media such as newspapers became dominant, individuals increasingly relied on mediated information rather than actively forming their own viewpoints. This shift led to more standardized and less dialogic forms of engagement with media (Noble, 2014, pp. 36-37). By contrast, oral societies offered greater opportunities for individuals to think independently, as knowledge is exchanged through dialogue rather than received passively (Noble, 2014, p. 37). Innis’ work makes clear that as communication becomes faster and more centralized, it becomes harder to ignore questions about who controls information and whose interests it serves. These dynamics are further explored by Herman and Chomsky (2010) in the “Propaganda Model,” which outlines the prevalence and underlying objectives of U.S. media through five key filters (pp. XI, 2). As Herman and Chomsky (2010) explain, these filters include: “Size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media” (p. 3). They also include “The advertising license to do business” (p. 14), “Sourcing mass-media news” (p. 18), “Flak and the enforcers” (p. 26), and “Anticommunism as a control mechanism” (p. 29). Herman and Chomsky’s (2010) analysis provides an important foundation for critical media literacy, specifically in its examination of how media perpetuate social norms and sustain concentrations of power (Gennaro et al., 2024, p. 18).

Herman and Chomsky’s (2010) central argument is illustrated by the title of their work, “Manufacturing Consent.” It suggests that consent is not an autonomous choice aligned with democratic participation; rather, it is produced through influential systems of propaganda, often with the audience’s participation. Seen through the lens of McLuhan’s theories, media technologies extend and amplify human functions while also shaping the communication environments in which information circulates – and these environments are not neutral. Herman and Chomsky (2010) demonstrate how these mass communication systems operate to shape and influence public opinion rather than foster critical thinking and autonomy – key concerns of critical media literacy. In this view, the media function less as neutral sources of information and more as mechanisms that shape citizens’ perceptions. The “Propaganda Model” demonstrates how social injustices are entrenched through the maintenance of power by dominant institutional actors (Herman & Chomsky, 2010). Taken together, Innis’ work on time and space bias, Herman and Chomsky’s “Propaganda Model,” and McLuhan’s observations on the rapidly expanding and pervasive nature of electronic media point to the development of critical media literacy as an essential response to the challenges of a media-dominated world (Kellner & Share, 2007, 2019).

The works of Innis and of Herman and Chomsky (2010) can also be connected to McLaren’s (1995) perspective on critical media literacy education. Although McLaren’s (1995) views were documented thirty years ago, when media literacy education was still emerging, they offer points of reflection for tracing the history of critical media literacy. As Kellner and Share (2005, 2007, 2019) have illustrated, McLaren (1995) argues that critical media literacy encourages deep reflection on personal interactions with and through media, as well as an understanding of the larger issues at stake – particularly the power wielded by media (p. 2). In this way, McLaren extends earlier critiques of media power by foregrounding the responsibility and agency of media users themselves. Accordingly, critical media literacy represents an important development, as it emphasizes media users’ awareness that their own media choices have consequences, but that these choices are rooted in predetermined social agreements and constructions that shape how the world is understood and represented (McLaren, 1995, p. 2; Butler, 2019, p. 24).

Critical Media Literacy Through A Cultural Studies Approach: Stuart Hall

The domain of cultural studies has contributed significantly to the development of critical media literacy by examining how power, shaped by sociopolitical factors and norms, drives media production (Kellner & Share, 2019, p. 9; Higdon & Huff, 2022, p. 131). Within this tradition, and central to Stuart Hall’s work, is the understanding that media meanings are not neutral but socially produced, making a critical media literacy approach essential. In particular, Hall’s Encoding/Decoding model provides a pivotal framework for understanding how messages are produced and received. The process of encoding involves ascribing conventional meanings to media forms (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 378), whereas decoding involves actively interpreting messages and social norms embedded within media texts (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 377). From this perspective, media messages are never neutral transmissions of information.

Rather, the practice of encoding messages is shaped by social, political, and commercial values (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 94). Encoded messages are then channelled through a medium and decoded by the recipient (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 94). This decoding process is largely informed by the individual’s contextually relevant lived experiences, which influence how the message is interpreted. (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 94). Hall (2009) describes communication as commonly viewed as a “circuit” (p. 28). He indicates that, while some have suggested that the weaknesses of this lie in its rigid dual, “sender-receiver” structure, focused on sending and receiving information, its strength lies in the recognition that communication is a complex process shaped by multiple factors (2009, p. 28). It is, therefore, important to acknowledge that communication is a nuanced process in which meanings are interpreted differently by audiences (Hall, 2009, p. 29) – an idea also conveyed by McLuhan (1997) in his edited volume with Michael Moos, Media Research: Technology, Art and Communication. Considering Hall’s contributions alongside critical media literacy, therefore, highlights its value as a framework for dissecting messages, revealing their core meanings, and clarifying their underlying construction and purpose (Gennaro et al., 2024; Kellner & Share, 2019). 

Hall’s Encoding/Decoding model suggests that media operate as carefully constructed frameworks shaped by intersecting sociopolitical factors within which encoding assigns meaning (Hall, 2019, p. 330). In this respect, Hall’s description of media communication systems aligns with Herman and Chomsky’s (2010) characterization of media as methodically structured to shape public opinion and influence patterns of thought. According to Hall (1980, 2009, 2019), encoded messages emerge from intricate, iterative design processes grounded in shared signs and conventions that function as social norms within particular cultures.

However, Hall also emphasizes that decoding is a personal process shaped by individual experiences, suggesting that messages are not always received as intended (Hall, 2019, p. 331). Therefore, Hall’s (1980, 2009, 2019) theory presents encoding and decoding as an interplay of social and personal processes that shape meaning. This perspective is central to critical media literacy, as it focuses on the ways socially constructed norms are embedded within media texts and underscores the need for sustained critical analysis (Kellner & Share, 2019; Higdon & Huff, 2022). Critical media literacy, as an essential skill, therefore enables individuals to examine how they negotiate power, representation, and meaning within media technologies and environments (Kellner & Share, 2019). More specifically, it shifts the focus from simply knowing how to use media – consistent with traditional notions of media literacy – to questioning who benefits from or is disadvantaged by particular media representations and how power shapes them (Gennaro et al., 2024; Kellner & Share, 2019). In this way, critical media literacy provides a framework for explicitly teaching these forms of critical analysis.

Drawing the Threads Together: McLuhan, Innis, & Hall on Critical Media Literacy

Based on the theories of McLuhan, Innis, and Hall, communication can be understood as an intricate process continually shaped by organizational, social, and personal factors. Drawing on McLuhan’s work, the assertion that “the medium is the message” (1997, p. 8) emphasizes that meaning is shaped first and foremost by the form of the medium itself. Hall (1980, 2009, 2019) further suggests that the processes of encoding and decoding information are conditioned by social and cultural factors that shape how messages are produced, circulated, and interpreted. Additionally, Innis’ theories of space and time bias demonstrate that different forms of communication media shape how cultures transmit and preserve knowledge (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 42; Noble, 2014). In this framework, oral cultures have historically been associated with embodied, dialogic communication, whereas print cultures are oriented toward speed – a tendency that continues in contemporary society’s reliance on electronic information (Gasher et al., 2016, p. 49; Noble, 2014; McLuhan, 1997). Together, these theoretical perspectives represent substantive contributions to the development of media theory. 

In conclusion, the field of critical media literacy has been influenced by the ideas of McLuhan, Innis, and Hall. Its primary focus remains on examining how media shape social ideas and practices that reflect dominant norms, while also exploring how media can be used to advance social justice (Kellner & Share, 2005, 2007, 2019; Higdon & Huff, 2022; Kersch & Lesley, 2019; Thevenin, 2022). Central to this perspective is the recognition that messages are complex products of intersecting cultural and social forces that influence how they are received and interpreted (McLuhan, 1997; Hall, 2009). In the electronic age – further complicated by social media and generative AI – we must carefully unpack media messages to navigate increasingly complex forms of communication and social interaction. This ongoing responsibility lies at the heart of critical media literacy and underscores its vital role in contemporary society.

References

Arke, E. (2013). Media literacy: History, progress, and future hopes. In K. E. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 96-108). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195398809.001.0001

Association for Media Literacy. (n.d.). Eight key concepts of media literacy. Association for Media Literacy.https://aml.ca/resources/eight-key-concepts-media-literacy/

Barrera Castro, G. P., Chiappe, A., Becerra Rodriguez, D. F., & Sepulveda, F. G. (2024). Harnessing AI for education 4.0: Drivers of personalized learning. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 22(5), 01–14. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.22.5.3467

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning, and contemporary culture. Polity Press.

Butler, A. (2020). Educating media literacy: The need for critical media literacy in teacher education. Brill Sense.

Cubbage, J. (2022). Critical race media literacy: Themes and strategies for media education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003182252

Forsdale, L. (1978, July 17). On nature and media: A dialogue of effects – Marshall McLuhan [Interview]. The Library of Consciousness.https://www.organism.earth/library/document/nature-and-media

Gasher, M., Skinner, D., & Lorimer, R. (2016). Mass communication in Canada (8^th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Gennaro, S., Higdon, N., & Hoechsmann, M. (Eds.). (2024). Transformative practice in critical media literacy: Radical democracy and decolonized pedagogy in higher education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375555

Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972-79 (1^st ed., pp. 117–127). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203381182

Hall, S. (2009). Encoding/decoding. In S. Thornham, C. Bassett & P. Marris (Eds.), Media studies: A reader (pp. 28-38). Edinburgh University Press.

Hall, S. (2019). Essential essays, volume 1: Foundations of cultural studies (D. Morley, Ed.). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11cw7c7

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Vintage Digital.

Higdon, N., & Huff, M. (2022). Let’s agree to disagree: A critical thinking guide to communication, conflict management, and critical media literacy. Routledge.

Hooshyar, D., Azevedo, R., & Yang, Y. (2024). Augmenting deep neural networks with symbolic educational knowledge: Towards trustworthy and interpretable AI for education. Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction, 6(1), 593–618. https://doi.org/10.3390/make6010028

Housand, B. C. (2021). Fighting fake news! Teaching critical thinking and media literacy in a digital age. Routledge.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2005). Toward critical media literacy: Core concepts, debates, organizations, and policy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(3), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300500200169

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy: Crucial policy choices for a twenty-first-century democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 5(1), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2007.5.1.59

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2019). The critical media literacy guide: Engaging media and transforming education. Brill Sense.

Kersch, D., & Lesley, M. (2019). Hosting and healing: A framework for critical media literacy pedagogy. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 11(3), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2019-11-3-4

Marwick, A. (2018). Silicon Valley and the social media industry. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 3–25). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473984066

McLaren, P. (1995). Rethinking media literacy: A critical pedagogy of representation. P. Lang.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

McLuhan, M. (1977). Laws of the media. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 34(2), 173–179. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42575246

McLuhan, M. (1997). Media research: Technology, art and communication (M. Moos, Ed.). Routledge. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.yorku.ca/10.4324/9781315078601

Mittal, U., Sai, S., Chamola, V., & Sangwan, D. (2024). A comprehensive review on generative AI for education. IEEE Access, 12, 142733–142759. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3468368

Noble, R. (2014). Innis’s conception of freedom. In C. R. Acland & W. J. Buxton (Eds.), Harold Innis in the new century: Reflections and refractions (pp. 31–45). McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Peebles, A. L., & Snyder, M. N. (2024). Are you smarter than ChatGPT? Challenging our understanding of media literacy through generative AI. Communication Teacher, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2024.2414032

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity.

Sharples, M. (2023). Towards social generative AI for education: Theory, practices and ethics. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2261131Thevenin, B. (2022). Making media matter: Critical literacy, popular culture, and creativeproduction. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.