There is a great deal of conversation among people about this idea expressed in the phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan, "The medium is the message."
The metaphor that is given is that the content of a message has as much meaning as the stenciling on the case of an atomic bomb.
This cuts to the core of many preachers who feel that it is really the content of what is being expressed that matters a great deal than the actual medium that is used. So churches debate the use of the internet to spread the gospel or maybe facebook is an important tool to use. The conversation is more about the merits of a particular medium (be it print books or ebooks or radio or podcasts etc.) rather than the actual medium itself. Put another way, the mediums are often seen as neutral and do not have an agenda.
McLuhan would argue against this idea. He would argue that in fact every medium has it's own message regardless of the content it is expressing.
Here is an example given by Shane Hipps who says that if a fifteen year old boy were to tell you, "God loves you." That would mean something. However, it would take on a different meaning if an eighty year old widow who lost a child said, "God loves you."
Another example not from Hipps: I can say forgiveness is what the world needs. But it is something different when the parents of the victims of the Amish school shooting say, what the world needs is forgiveness.
If it was the content, if it were the words of the message that was most important than it would not matter who said the words, it should carry the same weight coming from a teenager or a widow.
The medium is the message.
What sort of medium are you becoming?