Found and shared an interesting post with the CoP WhatsApp chat while poking around Instagram this weekend. We started digging into the semiotics of the image – essentially looking at how it will be interpreted, and what the “signs” we pick up are.
The B.C. Government's environmental assessment office launched an engagement on Jan. 15, 2021, asking folks to share their thoughts on the marine shipping requirements for the Trans Mountain Pipeline.
Chris, with his background in videography and visuals immediately twigged to the image. The colour choices and the friendly nature of the graphics. He also pointed out the relative size of the tankers, in the image - definitely not to scale of you look at the buildings and mountains in the back.
I also noticed, there were 246 comments, and not a single "love" - as you can see by the lack of red in the heart.
If we look at ethics related to communications, and the way that neutral-, pro- and anti-pipeline people communicate about this complex topic, I'm certain that there could be a heated debate on this image alone.
How do colours effect our emotions and how we interpret the larger discussion? Looking at this image, would anyone consider that millions of dollars, hundreds of arrests, and as many sleepless nights have been spent worrying about the sensitive ecosystem of the coast.
Does the government's image speak to the effects of more than doubling the amount of tankers and crude being shipped out of Burnaby station, how many marine mammals and Indigenous nations that rely on the coast for their livelihood and life in general may be in jeopardy?
Language, images and colours are all an important component of communications - and how they are ethically used is just as important.
-MP
Comments