ABSTRACT
This discussion is (almost) at an end; all that remains is a conclusion, and I want to open this conclusion by raising a concluding and very fundamental question: What is the use of a study that proposes to rehabilitate the model of the messenger and transmission? Surely it is intended to develop a more interesting – if also slightly outmoded – approach to media theory, but isn’t the risk of misunderstandings too high a price to pay for this media-theoretical perspective given the obvious heteronomy of the messenger figure and his apparently dependent transmission activity? This risk is further exacerbated by the fact that I have neglected to distinguish conceptually between the activity of a mere transmitter and the much more complex activity of a mediator (a difference that calls for a follow up to this study, as it is not addressed here). If it was only a matter of accenting a new aspect of this media concept, then the ‘dangers’ caused by the problems lurking in the messenger model could indeed compromise its potential benefits.
