I can't stand it when people use the word "media" to refer to information rather than the means of transmitting that information, i.e. referring to a group of specific movies, video games, books, etc. as "media" or even saying something like "a piece of media." It's supposed to be the plural form of the word "medium" - television, the printing press, the computer, are "media," not TV shows, novels, or video games themselves. This might sound pedantic, but the alternative is accepting the apparently popular attitude that everything that's even remotely artistic can be boiled down into the homogeneous category of "content" and piped directly into the brains of the audience. Reading a book, listening to music, looking at a painting - these activities are all "consuming content" or "consuming media" now. The implication is that the audience is the totally passive receptacle to an endless flow of "stuff" that doesn't vary in quality or style. It rules out the possibility of active engagement with fiction or art. I can understand speaking this way out of convenience, but if you're not careful it will make you start thinking like a Hollywood executive. Talking about "media" also makes sense if you're thinking about the long-term and "macro" effects of things like TV or the internet instead of commenting on specific works. In any other case being specific is better.