Telling the Truth 1.

Hi my name is Mary Bucy, and Im here today with Gwenda Rice to talk a little bit about Telling the Truth. It seems like a pretty straightforward topic . . . but it turns out, its trickier than we might think. And trickier yet to read the truth. 3. One way to illustrate this difficulty is by looking at the telling of History. It would seem a simple thing to tell the truth about history. After allcertain things happened. If we tell the truth about what happened, weve done our job. But of course, as you know, try as we might we cant do that. We cant even find two textbooks that tell the same story. Despite the fact that they are working with the same body of historical facts, Howard Zinns Peoples History of the United States tells a very different story from the American Heritage History of the United States. Why is that? We only have one history dont we? Well there are a number of reasons, but two stand out. First it is not possible to relate every event that has happened in the course of our history. At some point, decisions must be made about what stories to tell, and what stories to leave out. 4. Our choice of which details to include and which to omit determines the story we tell. We can relate two very different histories if we choose to focus on very different details. 5. Second, different individuals or groups view events differently. The Native American perspective of the settling of America is very different from the EuroAmerican view. Our stories change depending on the perspective we take the angle with which we look at history. 6. These issues that interfere with telling the truth arent limited to history. Our lives are surrounded with examples of the subjectivity of truth. When we look at the news we see this skewing effect in a variety of ways. 7. Again, from whose viewpoint is the news story being told? Take the Iraq war for example how will different reports look? the US view vs. the European view? the US view vs. the Arab view? the view from afar vs. the view on the ground? the news-anchor view vs. the embedded journalist view?

 the pro-war view vs. the anti-war view? Same events different stories. 8. You know, mystery writers really play on this idea of perspective. Telling a story from one perspective hides details that might be seen from a different perspective. Thats our job as the reader to try to determine what missing details, what different perspectives might reveal the truth. And the good mystery-writer presents a cohesive, believable story that fits together perfectly from one viewpoint, and then hits us at the end with the surprise: a new perspective that now seems obvious (if only we thought to look at it from that angle). 9. One way journalists try to accommodate this issue of differing perspectives is to tell both sides of the story. Always give equal time to the other side of any story. 10. This in itself creates an interesting issue. If we always tell both sides of a story, we imply that there always are two sides: that there always is a black and white story to be told. But we all know that stories are not that simple. Usually there are multiple viewpoints and many different factors playing a role in any event. Life is complex, and cant be reduced to a balanced black and white argument. Something else happens when we take care to balance a story: sometimes a story isnt balanced. Let me give a quick example. Several years ago, in Corvallis, a young, openly gay student was followed and attacked by fellow students on his way home from school. There was a huge outcry from the student body and the community against this attack and the local newspaper carried the story. In an effort to tell a balanced story, they sought out individuals who supported the anti-gay view. The end result was that it appeared there was a huge gay vs. anti-gay controversy in Corvallis, when in fact, there was overwhelming condemnation of the event. 11.Telling both sides of the story in a balanced way obscured the truth rather than revealing it. 12. Something else happens in the telling of news. The things we emphasize determine the image we create of the truth about the world. For example, violence sells newspapers. As a result, violent news stories often dominate the news in a way that is not representative of their rate of occurrence in

the world. If we all form an image of New York City based on reports of violence on the streets, it is bound to be skewed from the actual New York. (In fact, studies have shown that the more TV an individual watches, the more pronounced is his or her view of the world as a dangerous place.) 13. Certain types of stories (sex, violence, celebrities, etc.) have more selling power than others, so those stories are told as a larger proportion of the news than others, which misrepresents our world and distorts our world view. When we see the same stories over and over, we begin to believe they are the only stories. 14.So lets look at one other medium for representing our world: the photograph. We have a tendency to assume photographs capture the truth. After all, they are simply two-dimensional reproductions of the actual world. They capture whats actually there. 15. But, as with every medium, a photograph tells a story. And behind every story is a storyteller. The storytellers purpose determines what truth the photograph tells. Every picture has been edited in some way by the photographer. Sometimes its as simple as moving in order to frame the subject of the picture. Framing determines what is important it emphasizes one view of the world. 16. Another way the photographer can edit the view is by cropping out elements that distract from the focus of the picture. Some elements are omitted. What is omitted has been determined to be unimportant. While cropping helps us focus on key elements, sometimes cropped photographs can conceal important details that change the overall truth of the image. 17. Another way details are omitted from a photograph is by simply moving distracting elements out of the way in this case by removing everything but the child and the graffitior more likely, moving the child to the perfect position to tell this story. Presenting a strong image might involve rearranging the world a bit. Photographers can manipulate the meaning we take from an image by changing the photo angle. In this case, the high anglelooking down on the individual can create a feel of powerlessness or weakness. Where a low angled shot can produce a feel of power.

18. Sometimes we deliberately distort a photograph by manipulating the camera or the picture itself rather than manipulating the world. In this photograph, in order to emphasize the impact of the bombings in Beirut, the photographer added more smoke (not very skillfully). We can manipulate the representation in a way that emphasizes the aspects we want to draw attention to. No photo tells the whole truth. It is always edited in some way by the storyteller. It always tells one truth and obscures others. 20. The point Im trying to make is, its hard to tell the truth. In fact, Id go so far as to say, its impossible. 21. Switch to Gwenda: And its not just images and news articles that struggle with telling the truth. We see all of these same issues in the world of maps. Because just as in every other medium, every map tells a story and where theres a story, theres a storyteller Every map has a purpose and that purpose is going to distort the representation. This is always true. Different perspectives result in different views of our world Even starting with the same data, every map tells a different story To tell a clear story, some data must be omitted When we emphasize certain aspects, others are obscured Lets take a look at how some of these issues play out. 24. Projections We tend to assume that maps represent reality ( Mark Twain story) Need to train students to look at maps with a critical eye Globes preserve four properties shape, area, distance, and direction Problem of transferring a spherical surface on to a flat surface Cannot retain all four properties simultaneously Cartographers make choices about which property to preserve Result is different kinds of Projections ( show examples) Mercator Peters Mollweide Perspectives o Which world view to emphasize? o Dominance of Atlantic centered world maps

 Should North always be at the top? o Historical view T&O maps, Frau Mauro map, Expose students to different perspectives of the world Expose students to different kinds of maps 78. Return to Mary: So Gwenda has been looking at maps on a grand scale how do we represent a spherical world on a flat map? How do different perspectives change our grand view of the world? But on a local scale as well these issues exist. Because not only is the world not flat, but the ground is not level. Somehow, we have to represent a 3-dimensional landscape on a 2-dimensional map. No map in the world is able to represent every dip and hill on the ground from one acre to the next. And so, we make decisions. On a local scale we also have differing perspectives. 79. And every perspective brings some details into view while obscuring others. We can choose to map the landscape from eye-level, revealing information about the vertical relationships between elements. But viewed this way, elements in the foreground obscure items further back. 80. We can map the landscape from a birds-eye view, as from a hot air balloon. This brings elements into the background into view, but distorts scale and distance, as elements further away look smaller and closer together than those in the foreground. 81. We can map the landscape from above, which can maintain size and scale relationships, but obscures any information about altitude changes. Every choice is a compromise: we show some things clearly while obscuring or distorting others 82. There are good reasons for tolerating these distortions. Remember, every map has a purpose and that purpose is going to distort the representation. This is always true. 83. Lets say, for example, that we want a roadmap. In order to have a useful map, it is necessary to misrepresent the scale of the road if we displayed the road at its actual scale, it would be invisible to the naked eye. We tolerate this distortion because we understand that this is merely a way to emphasize the road.

At the same time we omit elements that clutter the map and are irrelevant to navigation. Similar to cropping a photograph, we remove elements to allow a focus on navigation. This map only shows the general route of the road and its relationship to towns, nearby roads, and waterways. Other elements are omitted. Not an accurate representation of the world, but it serves the purpose of the map. 84. We all do an extreme version of this when we hand draw map instructions for our friends. We overemphasize landmark points, and deemphasize (or omit) points that are not relevant. So what matters? General direction Corners Intersections Landmarks The same things are done on professional maps to make the key information clear. 85 .In mapping towns and roads it is also common to move features slightly if they overlap one another or interfere with a key feature. This is frequently a problem when town names create a busy map that is hard to read. When moving the name doesnt work, moving the town itself a hair up or down can solve the problem without rendering the map useless. 86. Another way key information on a map is emphasized is by using generalizations. Rather than showing the exact route of a road, with all its little turns and twists, we sometimes generalize angles and curves so that key turns can be seen while others are deemphasized. 87. At the same time, we might lengthen short bits of road so they will show, and shorten the long bits so that all the parts can be visible. The end result can be a highly distorted, yet user-friendly map. 88. Lets look at an example where the purpose of the map could be fulfilled with very little accurate information about the actual landscape. The standard subway map, now used around the world, removes nearly all geographical data from the map. What do you need to know when riding the subway? In fact, it turns out you need to know very little about where the train actually goes. You only need to know which line goes where you want to go, the order in which it passes through stations, and the relative distances between stations (is it a long way, or is the next one close?). The lines themselves are depicted in such a generalized manner that all we see is what looks like a loop or a straight line.

After riding the subways, most of us have a pretty distorted view of where they actually go, but we get where we need to be. 89. Generalizations are used in all aspects of maps to make them easier to read all of course, dependent on their purpose. We all recognize coastlines, although they are grossly simplified, only showing the most general curves and turns 90. The larger the area we want to show, the more we have to generalize information. As we zoom in from an island, to a region, to a city, more and more detail can be included. So larger-scale maps show more detail, but they also show less area. When we want to see a larger area, we accept a loss in detail and an increase in generalization. 98. Lets look at one more example of ways we distort the truth. This is a map from the 1850s of a cholera epidemic in London. In an effort to determine whether the deaths were related to the water source, the deaths and water pumps were mapped out with one black bar representing each death. Now we can count up the deaths and see a sort of pattern, but another way to look at this kind of data is to aggregate it: in other words to represent the density of occurrences in different areas with differing shades of grey. 99. Here are some examples. Notice, though, how the patterns change depending on where we put the boundaries for the different areas. In this one the most heavily infected areas are right around the pump, in this one deaths are more evenly distributed around the pump, and in the final one, the most heavily infected areas arent even adjacent to the pump. Now you might not think this is terribly significant, but lets look at another example that might be more relevant to you. 100. Lets imagine a state with 125 registered voters (a very small state) 65 are Republican, while 60 are Democrats. Now, this state has 5 congressional districts. Based on our numbers, we can assume, then, that we should end up with 3 Republican representatives, and 2 Democratic representatives. So lets look what happens when we divide up our districts. 101. In this example, each of the five districts has 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats, so despite the nearly even numbers, all five districts are won by Republicans.

102. In this example, but drawing the lines only slightly differently, we lump some extra Republicans in this district 17 here, with only 8 Democrats. Now the remaining districts each have 13 Democrats and only 12 Republicans allowing the Democrats to win 4 of the 5 districts. 103. This type of redistricting is happening regularly throughout our country with lines generally drawn by politicians in office with the intent of keeping the incumbent in office. Here is what happened in Illinois. Notice the purple, crabshaped District 17. This district lies mostly in the western Democratic part of the state, but two long claws reach out into districts 18 and 19 to grab some Democratic-leaning cities, leaving Districts 18 and 19 safely in the hands of Republicans. So, from all of this, we can see that maps distort the truth. . . just as images distort the truth. 104. But what difference does it make, anyway? Why should we care if maps and images only show a limited view of the truth? Why should we care if each one shares only one perspective? Surely between all of the images and maps in the world, the truth will be revealed. 105. But here are some of the issues that grow out of these mistruths:

Generalizations simplifying the truth down to the basic elements (as in the road map where the roads are straightened out a bit) make it easier for us to convey a point. If we take the general truth that Mexicans enjoy a siesta in the hot afternoons, then depicting a siesta is an easy way to quickly get across a message of Mexican-ness. So in cartoons and illustrations, this might be a common image used to make that point. Generalizations can help us understand different cultures and are not bad in and of themselves. Generalizations, because they get across a message easily and quickly, are frequently used in the mass media. When depicting an Arab in an image, it makes sense to show general, recognizable Arab features such as dark skin, facial hair, or a turban. In our culture, we are much more likely to see generalizations of minority cultures than of our dominant culture. We see so many images of Americans that it is difficult to generalizewe see all of the exceptions. But with minority cultures, we see few images and those tend to show generalized traits and behaviors.

Generalizations risk becoming stereotypes. Its one thing to note that many Mexican immigrants have crossed the border illegally; its another altogether to assume that ALL Mexican immigrants are here illegally. This is when a generalization becomes a stereotype. A stereotype is an oversimplified, exaggerated, and often offensive generalization about a culture or a group. And when we see generalized images over and over, it is easy for a generalization to become a stereotype. Limited images of minority cultures in the media reinforce stereotypes. Stereotypes dont necessarily refer to negative characteristics. For example, Asians are often depicted at being skilled in math. It becomes problematic, though, when it becomes a stereotype. Is the Asian who is not a math genius now considered less? Not conforming with the given trait of the culture? What stereotypes of Arabs can you see in the beginning 2 minutes of Aladdin? Essentially, what stereotypes do is to categorize and label the differences between cultures. This is what is us and this is what is not us. The designation of foreignness and difference can become the basis for establishing superiority. When the dominant culture focuses on these differences, it is easy for the next step to be marginalization. This designation of differentness, for example, is what allowed for slavery. If we can document the differences between whites and black, and then label those who are different as heathen, we can justify the suitability for enslavement. Just as when we label an entire culture as evil we can justify war. When we associate differences in physical characteristics with labeled qualities, such as associating darkness of skin with criminal tendencies, we run into issues such as this one: When OJ Simpson was on trial for murder before the trial had endedthese two pictures were run in Newsweek and Time, in the same week. Note how Time chose to darken the image. There was a huge outcryTime was manipulating public opinion by making him look darker. Why should that make him look guiltier? Because of a stereotype a grossly exaggerated, simplification that says the darker the skin, the more criminal the individual. So, this categorization of entire groups based on stereotypes can lead to marginalization of minority cultures. Latinos are lazy and therefore not suitable to work in high-paying jobs. Arabs are dangerous and cannot be trusted living in our neighborhoods.

Another thing we mentioned earlier in this talk is the tendency for the media to tell stories that sell and stories that sell tend to be sensational violence, sex, etc. They are stories that highlight differences. We tend to hear the outlier stories, rather than stories of the norm. So images of violent attacks on the streets of our large cities are more likely to make the news than images of the more normal peaceful streets. When pictures of outliers are repeated over and over in the news, it appears as if these outliers are the norm. We see them repeated over and over and it seems inevitable that if we visit these streets, we will be attacked. When we base our understanding of a culture on images that make the news, we are very likely developing a distorted view of that culture.

111. So while maps and images are important tools to tell the stories of our world, as consumers we cant afford to take them at face value. We cant assume they are accurately representing the truth. In fact, we can be sure they are representing no more than one perspective, in a world where multiple truths are the reality. Just as when we read a mystery, we have to look at the story from a different perspective, when we view media we need to look at it critically, from different perspectives, to begin to understand these truths. We live in a multicultural world, with multiple perspectivesand as consumers we must consider these multiple perspectives PASS OUT PACKAGES OF IMAGES AND MAPS NOW

112. Insert Gwenda here: o childrens views of the world from the Barbara Petchenik World Map competition created by the International Cartographic Association ( ICA) o Competition goals: To promote childrens creative representation of the world To enhance cartographic awareness To make them more conscious of their environment o As you look at theses representations of the world from children ages 7 to 15, and from many different countries, use your critical thinking skills to analyze the maps Their perspectives Use of symbols Artistic styles What was included and what was left out?