The title of this post is a direct quote from John Coleman during his interview with Megyn Kelly, regarding his position that climate change is a hoax. It occurred to me that this statement is something that Al Gore could have seamlessly slipped into his speech in "An Inconvenient Truth," and something that very well may have rolled off his tongue during his lengthy advocacy for climate change. What is interesting about the present moment is that it has provided a means for each of these directly opposing views to be thoroughly disseminated; John Coleman on television, Al Gore in films, and both of them on the internet! It is much easier now to rally supporters of a given movement than ever before, and perhaps this is why the debate about climate change is still unresolved.
John Coleman, for those who agree that climate change is upon us, comes across as radical. He talks over Megyn Kelly repeatedly, backs his position with "facts" ('scientists' have signed a petition trying to delist CO2 as a greenhouse gas), and ultimately supports a position that - as he himself points out - has become hard for many people to believe in, considering the mass perpetuation of climate change by the media. However, while the objective of having Mr.Coleman on this show may have been to disprove his position, simply acknowledging it and giving it a greater chance to be heard may not accomplish the intended goal. As we discussed previously, the mention of a concept, in any light, activates the framework of that concept rather than inducing critical thought or belief. It is my fear that having Mr.Coleman on this show activated a framework of doubt in some peoples' minds, doing nothing to help the movement to slow climate change.
Despite his radical position, John Coleman raises some convincing arguments against the pro-climate-change view. His target is, of course, American climate change spokesperson, Al Gore! While I have always been wary of Al Gore, due to his increased advocacy of climate change seeming to arise from his loss in the elections, the point John Coleman makes is undeniable even without my prior wariness. He states that "Roger Rivel taught it to [Al Gore]; he got a D, and yet he has made a billion dollars off of climate change." This makes me wonder if Al Gore isn't perpetuating climate change just because he's making a killing from it. Of course I also believe that we need to take far better care of our earth, one way or the other.
So, in my opinion, as long as there are media available for both sides to use to get their messages out, both sides will remain prevalent. However the good news is that as long as long as there are two sides to this story, it will continue to be discussed and hopefully lead to an increased awareness and activity among the citizens of the world.
"Life is good, Ms.Kelly, life is good!" -John Coleman.
Thursday, 4 February 2016
Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Framing
Of the readings from last week, what stood out to me especially vividly was George Lakoff's article on why framing matters. Whether because I am particularly interested in the use of language, or because it compliments material from other classes, it came back up in my thoughts over the course of the week.
Lakoff states that "[i]n order to communicate a complex fact or a complex truth, one must choose one’s words carefully to activate the right frames so that the truth can be understood" (73). This is a simple principle of language and rhetoric, but encompasses many specific modes of communication that often go overlooked. "Frames" I took to mean many different things while reading Lakoff's article; discourse, and binaries, for example. Discourse, because we look at and engage with everything around us through them, and binaries, because we categorize and identify objects and texts through them. As he stated, frames can also "include semantic roles, relations between roles, and relations to other frames" (71).
When this became particularly clear to me in relation to environmental communication was standing in line at the Glendale Starbucks. The compartmentalized trash bin, with openings uncannily resembling a children's game, was distinctly labeled with two words - the text's colours corresponding to the hole through which that type of waste should go. The words? Recycle and Landfill. Not only were they framing the choice as "so simple that a child could do it," they are also forcing a binary between recycling and garbage that weighs one option with guilt and responsibility, and the other with superiority and morality. This framing falls under Lakoff's classification of "relations to other frames" of course, by contrasting (and thus linking) recycling with landfills.
Using dichotomy or binary as framing is immensely effective, as the associations are often intrinsically linked to our conceptions of "good" and "bad."
Lakoff states that "[i]n order to communicate a complex fact or a complex truth, one must choose one’s words carefully to activate the right frames so that the truth can be understood" (73). This is a simple principle of language and rhetoric, but encompasses many specific modes of communication that often go overlooked. "Frames" I took to mean many different things while reading Lakoff's article; discourse, and binaries, for example. Discourse, because we look at and engage with everything around us through them, and binaries, because we categorize and identify objects and texts through them. As he stated, frames can also "include semantic roles, relations between roles, and relations to other frames" (71).
When this became particularly clear to me in relation to environmental communication was standing in line at the Glendale Starbucks. The compartmentalized trash bin, with openings uncannily resembling a children's game, was distinctly labeled with two words - the text's colours corresponding to the hole through which that type of waste should go. The words? Recycle and Landfill. Not only were they framing the choice as "so simple that a child could do it," they are also forcing a binary between recycling and garbage that weighs one option with guilt and responsibility, and the other with superiority and morality. This framing falls under Lakoff's classification of "relations to other frames" of course, by contrasting (and thus linking) recycling with landfills.
Using dichotomy or binary as framing is immensely effective, as the associations are often intrinsically linked to our conceptions of "good" and "bad."
Thursday, 21 January 2016
Recycling Language
https://www.facebook.com/HuffPostCanadaLiving/videos/959229547446442/
The above video advertises an innovative shower head that alerts users to how much water they are consuming per time spent in the shower. The shower head conveniently syncs to the user's phone, to control colours and settings, and to allow for interactivity. The ad is intended to encourage individuals to purchase this device, but the underlying message is that we are wasteful with water and must be more diligent in our day to day uses of this resource.
Breaking down the communicative aspects of this ad, we can see that they are appealing to audiences in three ways:
First, the colours selected as warnings for the shower head in the ad are the commonly associated colours for "go" and "stop," green and red. Visually, these send cues to the viewer's brain that are so closely tied to an everyday, universal symbol that they are difficult to deny. Thus, prompting the belief that there is an allotted amount water we should be using, and a point at which we should cease.
Secondly, by detailing how the device connects to the user's smartphone, it appeals to our desire to be technologically advanced and proficient, as well as being autonomous. Individuals prefer to feel in control, so highlighting the app in this ad gives viewers the sense that they would be being actively productive in their environmentalism, instead of forced into it.
Finally, the ad recycles some colloquial phrases to appeal to a broader audience, and communicate a serious message in an informal, and thus easily digestible, manner. Terms such as "water hogs" and "shower shaming" are repurposed from demeaning social movements, like "fat shaming," to invoke feelings of gluttony and excess in the viewers.
Aided by a concise bout of statistics, this ad effectively reaches audiences with its message on environmentalism, in an engaging, casual, and informative way.
The above video advertises an innovative shower head that alerts users to how much water they are consuming per time spent in the shower. The shower head conveniently syncs to the user's phone, to control colours and settings, and to allow for interactivity. The ad is intended to encourage individuals to purchase this device, but the underlying message is that we are wasteful with water and must be more diligent in our day to day uses of this resource.
Breaking down the communicative aspects of this ad, we can see that they are appealing to audiences in three ways:
First, the colours selected as warnings for the shower head in the ad are the commonly associated colours for "go" and "stop," green and red. Visually, these send cues to the viewer's brain that are so closely tied to an everyday, universal symbol that they are difficult to deny. Thus, prompting the belief that there is an allotted amount water we should be using, and a point at which we should cease.
Secondly, by detailing how the device connects to the user's smartphone, it appeals to our desire to be technologically advanced and proficient, as well as being autonomous. Individuals prefer to feel in control, so highlighting the app in this ad gives viewers the sense that they would be being actively productive in their environmentalism, instead of forced into it.
Finally, the ad recycles some colloquial phrases to appeal to a broader audience, and communicate a serious message in an informal, and thus easily digestible, manner. Terms such as "water hogs" and "shower shaming" are repurposed from demeaning social movements, like "fat shaming," to invoke feelings of gluttony and excess in the viewers.
Aided by a concise bout of statistics, this ad effectively reaches audiences with its message on environmentalism, in an engaging, casual, and informative way.
Thursday, 14 January 2016
A Brief History
I have titled this page "Environmental Meta-Communication" because that is what I/we will be doing within it; talking about how the environment is talked about. In other words, this is a site dedicated to the discussion and analysis of environmental media.
Before discussing the nuances of environmental media, it is important to have some understanding of the background of the environmentalism movement. While the first hints of awareness of the negative impacts humans have on the environment can be dated back to the industrial revolution, for the purposes of this blog, I will use the post-WWII movement as a true starting point for today's environmentalist forces.
After the Second World War, people worldwide were wary of the effects of nuclear fallout; a comparison that Rachel Carson drew in order to drive home the severity of the impact that chemicals have on the natural environment. Carson's book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, is largely credited as inciting contemporary environmentalism; it scared citizens, it infuriated corporations, and ultimately, it served its purpose. The book and its contents functioned as a mediator between the masses, the concerns they were facing in the environment, and the rapid expansion of technology after the war. It created a space which allowed people to voice their concerns, and demanded responsibility be taken by the corporations which had caused them. Rachel Carson's work was jarring and novel for its time, but most importantly, it set the stage for environmental media of all types to come.
Before discussing the nuances of environmental media, it is important to have some understanding of the background of the environmentalism movement. While the first hints of awareness of the negative impacts humans have on the environment can be dated back to the industrial revolution, for the purposes of this blog, I will use the post-WWII movement as a true starting point for today's environmentalist forces.
After the Second World War, people worldwide were wary of the effects of nuclear fallout; a comparison that Rachel Carson drew in order to drive home the severity of the impact that chemicals have on the natural environment. Carson's book, Silent Spring, published in 1962, is largely credited as inciting contemporary environmentalism; it scared citizens, it infuriated corporations, and ultimately, it served its purpose. The book and its contents functioned as a mediator between the masses, the concerns they were facing in the environment, and the rapid expansion of technology after the war. It created a space which allowed people to voice their concerns, and demanded responsibility be taken by the corporations which had caused them. Rachel Carson's work was jarring and novel for its time, but most importantly, it set the stage for environmental media of all types to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)