Search

This article compares why McLuhan's work in communications has been the source of much acclaim whereas that of lnnis has attracted attention only recently. It argues that the disparate responses to the contributions of these two theorists are rooted not only in the extent to which their writings were available, but also in their differing communication practices. The latter account for why Innis' studies of media were initially ignored and why McLuhan was able to develop a considerable following, in part by drawing on Innis as a precursor; this resulted in a distorted view of lnnis' ideas that has persisted to this day. As a corrective, the article challenges McLuhan's claims that Innis viewed media as a form of staple and that he sought to understand how various knowledge specialities could be unified. Finally, it makes the case that the Innis/McLuhan tandem should be decoupled, to make better sense of a "de-McLuhanised" Innis on the one hand, and the McLuhanist-centred Toronto School on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]