The following is a little dogmatic, but I'm trying to clarify terms (at least for myself) that otherwise confuse discussions about media, information, and learning.
What is content and where in the world does it exist?
Content doesn't exist except as an idea that casually confounds "learning and knowledge" with "artifacts intended to facilitate communication."
Learning and knowledge, whatever they are, exist within that situated, growing, body/brain/consciousness referred to as an individual.
Information artifacts are physical entities that are designed (more or less) to facilitate communication; which is to say, to facilitate learning.
Utterances, vocal symbols, gestures, and spoken propositions are information artifacts whose construction is so fundamental to human and many other species (utterances, vocal symbols, and gestures at least) that our bodies/brains are evolved for the purpose.
These fundamental information artifacts, like the more recent ones (writing (via paper or computers), computation, radio waves, etc.) all succeed to the extent that they either overcome some natural barrier to communication/learning or broaden the palette for self-expression.
So the effectiveness of the artifact is dependent on its design and the limits to the design imposed by the physical materials (the medium) used.
Consider:
As Gary Morrison [26 Jul 96.a] pointed out, the key factor for affecting learning is the instructional (i.e., communication) strategy applied AND the capacity of a particular medium to support that strategy. For instance, the Louis Malle video would better support an immersive strategy than any of the others.
That said, one can't necessarily just choose another instructional strategy that better lends itself to a particular medium. If one adopts a constructivist or Deweyan framework for learning, then media can be differentiated on the degree to which they support interactive, learner-centered instructional strategies grounded in situated activity.
As for learning outcomes, these are envisioned information artifacts or particular behaviors which are hypothesized to indicate successful communication/learning. They are indirect indicators at best and are only as good as the thought underlying their design. The "data" that ultimately matter derive from the situated behaviors of individuals doing things that they care about. That this presents difficulties for traditional research and assessment has urged the exploration of more flexible means of conducting both.