Biodiversity Loss
Through Audiovisual Stories
"The story of the hummingbird is about this huge forest being consumed by a fire. All the animals in the forest come out and they are transfixed as they watch the forest burning, and they feel very overwhelmed, very powerless, except this little hummingbird. It says, ‘I’m going to do something about the fire!’ So it flies to the nearest stream and takes a drop of water. It puts it on the fire and goes up and down, up and down, up and down, as fast as it can. In the meantime all the other animals, much bigger animals like the elephant with a big trunk that could bring much more water, they are standing there helpless. And they are saying to the hummingbird, ‘What do you think you can do? You are too little. This fire is too big. Your wings are too little, and your beak is so small that you can only bring a small drop of water at a time.’ But as they continue to discourage it, it turns to them without wasting any time, and it tells them, ‘I am doing the best I can.’ And that, to me, is what all of us should do. We should always be like a hummingbird. I may be insignificant, but I certainly don’t want to be like the animals watching the planet goes [sic] down the drain. I will be a hummingbird; I will do the best I can."
- Laureate Wangari Maathi (Benenson & Rosow, 2009)
Effectively Communicating Biodiversity Loss
Through Audiovisual Stories
COURSE: Master Thesis in Media and Communication 1, 15 hp
PROGRAMME: Sustainable Communication
AUTHORS: Jannika Katharina Nowak, Susan Rozema
SUPERVISOR: Renira Gambarato
EXAMINER: Paola Sartoretto
ii JÖNKÖPING UNIVERSITY
School of Education and Communication Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden +46 (0)36 101000
Master thesis, 15 credits
Course:Master Thesis in Media and Communication 1
Term: Spring 2021
ABSTRACT
Writer(s):
Jannika K. Nowak & Susan Rozema
Title: Effectively Communicating Biodiversity Loss Through Audiovisual Stories
Language: English Pages: 49
Communication about biodiversity loss is insufficient and audiovisual stories can help to effectively communicate the problem. This research developed the optimum communication criteria for communicating effectively about biodiversity loss through audiovisual stories. We created our theoretical framework by combining contemporary research about audiovisual stories concerning science and studies on effective communication about biodiversity loss and conservation. Based on this framework and using relevant multimodal critical discourse analysis tools, we built an analytical model. We applied the model to the analysis of three contemporary audiovisual stories concerning biodiversity loss: Rang-tan: the story of dirty
palm oil (Greenpeace International, 2018), “Dream” (Wildlife Conservation Film Festival,
2016, original quotation marks), and The Birdman (Fordesman, 2020). The research findings demonstrate that current audiovisual stories lack aspects of the optimum communication criteria and that conservation communicators have not yet made use of the medium's full potential. Ideally, this thesis has the potential to encourage further research on how to communicate more effectively about biodiversity loss.
Keywords: communication, biodiversity loss, conservation, audiovisual stories,
iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures vi List of Tables vi Organisation of the Thesis vii 1. Introduction 1 2. Background 2 2.1 Defining the concept of biodiversity loss 2 2.2 Defining story and storytelling concepts 2 2.3 Terminology of audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss using short-format videos 3 3. Research and Questions 4 3.1 Research problem 4 3.2 Research objectives 5 3.3 Research questions 5 4. Literature Review 6 4.1 Communication about biodiversity loss 6 4.2 Audiovisual stories as a tool for biodiversity loss communication 7 5. Theory 9 5.1 Theoretical framework of optimum communication criteria 9 5.1.1 Simple 11 5.1.2 Unexpected 11 5.1.3 Concrete 11 5.1.4 Credible 11 5.1.5 Emotional 12 5.1.6 Science 13 5.1.7 Storytelling 14 6. Material 14 7. Method 15iv 7.1 Linguistic analysis tools 16 7.1.1 Classification of social actors 16 7.1.1.1 Personalisation and impersonalisation 16 7.1.1.2 Individualisation versus collectivisation 16 7.1.1.3 Nomination or functionalisation 17 7.1.1.4 Use of honorifics 17 7.1.1.5 Aggregation 17 7.1.1.6 Pronoun versus noun: the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ division 17 7.1.2 Representing Action 17 7.1.2.1 Material processes 17 7.1.2.2 Mental processes 17 7.1.3 Metaphors 18 7.1.4 Modals 18 7.2 Visual analysis tools 18 7.2.1 Settings 18 7.2.2 Attributes 19 7.2.3 Representing Characters 19 7.2.3.1 Individualisation versus collectivisation 19 7.2.3.2 Pose 19 7.2.3.3 Gaze 19 7.2.3.4 Distance 20 7.2.3.5 Angle 20 7.2.4 Salience 20 7.2.5 Modality 20 7.3 Analytical model on audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss 21 8. Analysis 24 8.1 Rang-tan: the story of dirty palm oil 24 8.1.1 Simple 24 8.1.2 Unexpected: 25 8.1.3 Concrete 26 8.1.4 Credible 27 8.1.5 Emotional 28 8.1.6 Science 29 8.1.7 Storytelling 30 8.1.8 Interim conclusion 30 8.2 “Dream” 31 8.2.1 Simple 31
v 8.2.2 Unexpected 31 8.2.3 Concrete 32 8.2.4 Credible 32 8.2.5 Emotional 33 8.2.6 Science 35 8.2.7 Storytelling 35 8.2.8 Interim conclusion 36 8.3 The Birdman 36 8.3.1 Simple 36 8.3.2 Unexpected 38 8.3.3 Concrete 38 8.3.4 Credible 39 8.3.5 Emotional 40 8.3.6 Science 41 8.3.7 Storytelling 42 8.3.8 Interim conclusion 42 9. Conclusion 42 9.1 Limitations and further research 45 10. References 46
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Orangutan behind shampoo bottle (Greenpeace International, 2018, 0:16) ... 24 Figure 2: Deforestation (Greenpeace International, 2018, 0:37) ... 27 Figure 3: The eyes of the orangutan (Greenpeace International, 2018, 0:31) ... 28 Figure 4: A man fires a gun (WCFF, 2016, 1:12) ... 32 Figure 5: Pelican watching a burning oil platform (WCFF, 2016, 1:36) ... 33 Figure 6: Men looking down at seal (WCFF, 2016, 2:30) ... 34 Figure 7:Seal facing men (WCFF, 2016, 2:37) ... 34 Figure 8: Bird being studied by professor (Fordesman, 2020, 1:47) ... 37 Figure 9: Map of Mauritius (Fordesman, 2020, 1:37) ... 38 Figure 10: Young professor staring into the distance (Fordesman, 2020, 7:28) ... 40List of Tables
Table 1: Optimum Communication Criteria (OCC). Source: adapted by us from Finkler & León (2019, p. 7) ... 9 Table 2:Analytical model on audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss ... 21vii
Organisation of the Thesis
We, Jannika Nowak and Susan Rozema, wrote this thesis together and divided the work as follows. Susan wrote the abstract, the introduction was written by Jannika and the background by Susan. Jannika then wrote the research problem and Susan the research objectives and research questions. We wrote the literature review together, but Jannika focussed on the part about communication about biodiversity loss while Susan focussed on the part about audiovisual stories as a tool for biodiversity loss communication. The composition of our theoretical framework we did together. Jannika wrote the descriptions of the principles simple, unexpected, concrete, credible and emotional, and Susan wrote the descriptions for science and storytelling. The limitations were written by Jannika and the material by Susan. We developed the questions of the analytical model together. Susan then ascribed and described the linguistic tools and Jannika the visual tools. This division continued in the analysis. Jannika answered the questions from a visual perspective and Susan from a narrative, linguistic and audio perspective. We then discussed and wrote the individual and overall conclusions together.
During the process of writing, we always wrote side by side while sitting next to each other. This way, we could always ask each other for input. Additionally, we always discussed what would be in a text before one of us would write it. Moreover, we would read each other's texts and add comments or suggested changes to improve them.
In the end, Jannika did the overall formatting, such as page numbers, correct chapter and paragraph titles, numbering, and the table of contents. Susan checked and corrected the sources and created a front page.
1
1. Introduction
Human-driven environmental change entails countless consequences: the most severe ones being climate change and biodiversity loss (Mace, 2020). Although they are closely related, climate change has gained considerably more attention in the public eye and politics over the past years (Mace, 2020), leaving the equally urgent matter of the global loss of biodiversity in its shadows. How the issue is framed and communicated to the people plays an essential role in tackling the problem (Legagneux et al., 2018). An international communication strategy is urgently needed (Legagneux et al., 2018), conveying a clear and compelling message to the public about the importance of biodiversity and what is at stake when depleting it (Novacek, 2008). Fundamentally, a shift in the current public state of awareness, attitude and behaviour towards biodiversity loss is needed.
To achieve this shift, previous research has developed efficient communication strategies concerning the topic. They address aspects such as engaging the public in biodiversity issues (Novacek, 2008), effectively framing the biodiversity conservation message (Kusmanoff et al., 2020), bridging the discrepancy of media coverage on climate change vs biodiversity (Legagneux et al., 2018) and promoting biodiversity (Schaffner et al., 2015).
Audiovisual stories are one aspect of communication strategies regarding biodiversity loss highlighted in previous research as an efficient communication tool concerning science (Finkler & León, 2019). However, there is a lack of studies examining the communication of biodiversity loss in the form of audiovisual stories and if current productions conform to effective communication criteria and suggestions of contemporary research.
At the beginning of this thesis, the concepts of biodiversity loss and storytelling are defined. In chapter three, the research problem and objectives, as well as research questions, are presented, followed by the review of current literature linked to the research topic. Research findings about communication concerning biodiversity loss and audiovisual stories as a medium of communication are explored. Chapter five presents our theoretical framework of optimum communication criteria (OCC) concerning audiovisual stories communicating biodiversity loss. In chapter six, the studied material is displayed. Chapter seven describes our analytical model, linking it to relevant linguistic and visual tools of multimodal critical discourse analysis.
2 This is followed by the analysis of three case studies (chapter eight). In chapter nine, the conclusion of the thesis is presented, and the limitations of this work are evaluated. The research findings demonstrate that current audiovisual stories lack aspects of the OCC and that conservation communicators have not yet used the medium's full potential.
2. Background
Three essential concepts are continuously used throughout the thesis: biodiversity loss, story, and storytelling. Definitions and descriptions of these concepts that clarify what they imply can be found below. Next, the terminology used when referring to audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss using short-format videos is explained.
2.1 Defining the concept of biodiversity loss
The term biodiversity is defined as the degree of variation of life (Hooper et al., 2012) encompassing variations in ecosystems, species and genetics within an area, a biome or a planet (Schaffner et al., 2015). Critical key processes of the earth’s sustainable ecosystem are altered through mass extinctions (Hooper et al., 2012), inevitably endangering the very basis of (human) life. The contributions of nature are essential for human’s survival and quality of life. More and more natural resources are provided to people at nature’s expense, threatening nature’s ability to keep supplying such commodities for future generations (Diáz et al., 2019, p. 10).
2.2 Defining story and storytelling concepts
A standard definition of a story is something with a beginning, a middle and an end (McKee, 2016; Moezzi et al., 2017). Another story structure has been provided for science stories in particular which is called ABT; And, But, Therefore (Olson, 2009). For example, a new development has happened, and many people use this development, but this is decreasing biodiversity, therefore it has to be changed. Most stories include a protagonist, human or otherwise, who gets into some form of conflict or undergoes a transformation (Moezzi et al., 2017). These descriptions and definitions are somewhat abstract. Therefore, additionally the more concrete and carefully formulated definition by Ryan (2007) is used.
3 According to Ryan (2007), there is not one medium assigned to a story, and it can both entail fiction and nonfiction. She also describes a story as a partial synonym to narrative and describes their relationship as “narrative is a discourse that conveys a story” (Ryan, 2007, p. 26). Ryan (2007) defines narrative regarding eight conditions divided over four dimensions:
Spatial dimension
(1) Narrative must be about a world populated by individuated existents.
Temporal dimensions
(2) This world must be situated in time and undergo significant transformations. (3) The transformations must be caused by non-habitual physical events.
Mental dimension
(4) Some of the participants in the events must be intelligent agents who have a mental life and react emotionally to the states of the world.
(5) Some of the events must be purposeful actions by these agents.
Formal and pragmatic dimensions
(6) The sequence of events must form a unified causal chain and lead to closure. (7) The occurrence of at least some of the events must be asserted as fact for the storyworld.
(8) The story must communicate something meaningful to the audience. (Ryan, 2007, p. 29)
Since the word story is widely used and can be applied in many situations, this definition narrows down what can be understood as an audiovisual story to make sense for the purposes of this research.
The term storytelling refers to the act of constructing and telling a story and not to the story itself (Moezzi et al., 2017). How a story is told depends on the context, the audience and the purpose of telling the story. The same story can be told in many different ways (Moezzi et al., 2017).
2.3 Terminology of audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss using
short-format videos
Our research focuses on audiovisual (using both sight and sound) stories about biodiversity loss using short-format videos. The term short-format is based on the framework created by
4 Finkler and León (2019), on which our research heavily relies. There is no universal definition of a short-format video in terms of minutes. However, the viewer's engagement is highest with videos lasting up to two minutes (Fishman, 2016). Educational videos have an optimal length of six minutes or shorter and should not exceed a length of twelve minutes (Guo, 2013). Therefore, in this research, the term short-format is defined as being under twelve minutes. To avoid using the lengthy phrase of audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss using short-format
videos repeatedly, they will primarily be referred to as audiovisual stories.
3. Research and Questions
3.1 Research problem
According to numerous studies, the problem of biodiversity loss is currently not reaching the public the same way as the problem of climate change does (Legagneux et al., 2018; Mace, 2020; Redford et al., 2012). Moreover, it could be argued that the rising attention for global warming has led to a decrease in attention for other environmental problems such as the destruction of ecosystems (Novacek, 2008). According to Legagneux et al. (2018), the media covered climate change up to eight times more often than the problem of biodiversity loss. They found that this difference is not in line with the scientific output covering the two issues. A reason for this difference in media coverage and public consciousness is that the general public does not necessarily understand what biodiversity means since the word is obscure and needs to be explained multiple times to be understood (Novacek, 2008). In 2002, Väliverronen and Hellsten already mentioned the difficulty of visualising the loss of biodiversity and the lack of a symbol to represent the problem. Almost two decades later, according to Bjærke (2019), biodiversity loss is still invisible. Therefore, it is valuable to study how audiovisual stories communicate and represent the topic at present.
Additionally, it is argued that climate change has been better established as an issue that requires policies (Bjærke, 2019), while for loss of biodiversity, there is no clear goal to base policies on (Legagneux et al., 2018). Another reason for the biodiversity issue being less popular is that climate change has already been related to natural events and other specific consequences for humanity, while such connections to biodiversity loss remain absent (Legagneux et al., 2018; Redford et al., 2012; Väliverronen & Hellsten, 2002). Mace (2020) agrees that the consequences of biodiversity loss are numerous, complex, and unclear.
5 Moreover, there is a lack of understanding concerning the importance of ecosystem services and how they are essential to humans (Mace, 2020; Novacek, 2008). According to Bjærke (2019), framing biodiversity loss as a problem in close relation to climate change is also not ideal since this makes it seem like both problems require the same measures, which is not the case. Therefore, she argues, it is crucial to establish biodiversity loss as an individual issue.
Legagneux et al. (2018) argue that the media are essential for educating the public about environmental problems and making them more popular. Moreover, researchers agree that the current communication about biodiversity loss is lacking and needs improving (Jacobson et al., 2018; Legagneux et al., 2018; Mace, 2020). The current narrative of biodiversity loss – which is based on alarming scientific facts and numbers – is not doing enough to inspire action at the scale needed. Therefore, better communication methods need to be developed and implemented (Mace, 2020). Before improvements can be made, it is important to know and draw from current research and communication productions. Therefore, this research will be a vital step on the path to improved communication regarding biodiversity loss.
3.2 Research objectives
This research aims to provide a better understanding of how audiovisual stories currently communicate and how they could be used to improve the effectiveness of biodiversity loss communication. Therefore, this research has the aspiration to find the OCC regarding audiovisual stories communicating biodiversity loss. Optimally, this research’s findings show the potential of audiovisual stories and will encourage scientists and communicators to use them for communication about biodiversity loss.
3.3 Research questions
1. What are the optimum communication criteria (OCC) to be considered in audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss using short-format videos?
2. In what ways do contemporary audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss using short-format videos meet the OCC?
2.1 Which OCC do the selected audiovisual stories employ?
2.2 How are the OCC represented in the selected audiovisual stories?
2.3 If the selected audiovisual stories do not meet the OCC, how could they be improved?
6
To answer these questions, we have created a theoretical framework of optimum criteria for communicating about biodiversity loss through audiovisual stories. Our theoretical framework was built starting from Finkler and León (2019) propositions and further drawing from previous research by Legagneux et al. (2018), Kusmanoff et al. (2020), Novacek (2008), and Schaffner et al. (2015), among others. In addition, to better understand whether contemporary audiovisual stories meet these optimum criteria, we developed an analytical model to analyse three different short-format videos addressing biodiversity loss. We have chosen Rang-tan: the story of dirty
palm oil (Greenpeace International, 2018), “Dream” (Wildlife Conservation Film Festival
[WCFF], 2016, original quotation marks), and The Birdman (Fordesman, 2020) for their pertinence and diversity concerning the scope of the research.
4. Literature Review
As presented above, the communication about biodiversity loss needs to be ameliorated significantly (Jacobson et al., 2018; Legagneux et al., 2018; Mace, 2020). The topic is still not visible enough (Bjærke, 2019) and does not yet effectively reach the public (Legagneux et al., 2018; Mace, 2020; Redford et al., 2012). Research has already established multiple strategies for improving communication about biodiversity loss. This literature review explores the studies that present and investigate such strategies and detects how audiovisual stories could play a relevant role. Moreover, these studies constitute the basis for developing our theoretical framework and analytical model.
4.1 Communication about biodiversity loss
Several research studies have determined the necessary factors and strategies for successfully communicating about biodiversity loss. Legagneux et al. (2018) explore the discrepancy of media coverage in biodiversity versus climate change and deliver advice to scientists on how to gain more media awareness and communicate effectively about biodiversity loss; for example, by emphasising the value of biodiversity to humanity and giving exact purposeful information. Novacek (2008) identified the challenges of dealing with the biodiversity crisis in his study Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. He investigated how to communicate the important message of biodiversity loss better and advised how to deal with these challenges,
7 among other things, by forming a connection to nature. Efficient communication is also examined in the study Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message
framing which found that it is essential to (1) pay attention to how something is said, (2) make
sure that the message emphasises and resonates with the audience’s concerns, (3) make use of social norms since they have tremendous power to affect behaviour, (4) reduce the psychological distance to the topic and (5) strategically taking advantage of or steer clear of certain biases (Kusmanoff et al., 2020). Several studies (Jacobson et al., 2018; Kidd et al., 2019; Schaffner et al., 2015; White et al., 2020) explore the emotional factors as well as the effectiveness of a positive versus a negative framing of the theme and whether to focus on gains or losses. For example, a study called Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings,
facts, advice or appeals? found that a communication strategy to promote biodiversity works
best when creating awareness, containing relevant information, recommending specific actions and evoking positive emotions (Schaffner et al., 2015). We draw from these research findings and incorporate them into our theoretical framework of optimum communication criteria. Therefore, specific relevant conclusions about effective communication strategies and criteria concerning biodiversity loss will be presented along with the presentation of the theoretical framework hereafter.
4.2 Audiovisual stories as a tool for biodiversity loss communication
Storytelling is an ancient practice proven to be an effective tool to engage an audience (Finkler & León, 2019; Redford et al., 2012). Zak (2014) studied the effects of storytelling in the brain. He recognised that when someone shows us kindness or when we feel trusted, a neurochemical called oxytocin is produced in the brain. This neurochemical makes us more willing to cooperate with others. What he discovered is that storytelling also causes the brain to produce oxytocin. The more oxytocin is produced, the more people are willing to help others. Therefore, people are more willing to, for example, donate to a cause after they were presented with a story related to the cause. However, Zak (2014) argues that to motivate people to help others, the story must sustain the viewer’s attention by developing tension. If this is done successfully, viewers will likely share the characters’ emotions and mimic them after the story is over. Zak (2014) has shown the effectiveness of storytelling: emotional and character-driven stories cause the audience to get a better grasp of the information that the storyteller is trying to convey and cause them to remember this information weeks later. These findings underpin the relevance8 of this research and the decision to explore audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss. Redford et al. (2012) argue that science alone cannot change people’s minds, while storytelling can. However, they warn storytellers that these types of stories still have to be science-based and that science and stories are not the same.
Getting lost or absorbed in a story is called ‘transportation’ (Beamish, 2016). Finkler and León (2019) argue that transportation influences the audience in three ways: (1) creating a connection with a character and making people identify with them, (2) when making a confident statement, reducing any counter-arguments, (3) by making abstract ideas more concrete to increase realism and credibility. A strong relationship between the audience and the characters enhances the probability of a change in the viewer’s behaviour and attitude (de Graaf et al., 2012).
Video as an audiovisual medium for storytelling can enable transportation. It allows people to experience places and situations otherwise unattainable to them (Finkler & León, 2019). It, therefore, makes a complex and abstract topic such as biodiversity loss more tangible, which is why the focus is on audiovisual stories for this research. Transportation can be supported through emotive imagery combined with narrative, which can make a message more convincing (Beamish, 2016 as cited in Finkler & León, 2019). Films reflect the structure and the current state of society and its individuals (Mikos, 2014). ”With movies, we can get a better sense of what we are doing here, why we are doing it, and what in the world we need to do to bring about the changes we seek” (Teays, 2012, p. XI).
Nowadays, people rely more and more on digital and social media as their source of information (Jacobson et al., 2018). Videos and images make up a significant part of digital and social media and affect the audience’s emotions, awareness, and actions (Jacobson et al., 2015). Thus, it is extremely valuable to get a better insight into the medium of storytelling short-format videos to reach the audience and put the issue of biodiversity loss on the public agenda as a high priority item.
9
5. Theory
5.1 Theoretical framework of optimum communication criteria
This research involves the creation of our theoretical framework in which the optimum communication criteria (OCC) are presented. We created this framework drawing from the already existing framework SciCommercial principles of simple sticky science ideas developed and tested by Finkler and León (2019) and combined it with research findings regarding communication about biodiversity loss. The SciCommercial principles of simple sticky science
ideas incorporate seven components to be used in short-format video storytelling to
successfully communicate about science (Finkler and León, 2019). Finkler and León (2019) argue that using marketing-based communication for communicating about science has the advantages of shifting the attention and awareness of the audience to make them wish for action. Finkler and León (2019) adapted the six principles of sticky successful ideas from Heath and Heath (2007) and Shimp and Andrews (2013): Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible,
Emotional, and Stories (SUCCES), and put them in a theoretical framework to better
communicate about science through short-format videos. They added Science as an extra principle and included the effect each principle should have on the audience: “[S]ticky science
ideas are needed to make the audience pay attention, understand and remember, agree/believe,
care and be able to act on it” (Finkler and León, 2019, p. 7, original italics).
The seven principles defined by Finkler and León (2019) for science storytelling purposes are presented in Table 1. We adopt their definitions, connecting them to research findings regarding communication about biodiversity loss.
Table 1: Optimum Communication Criteria (OCC). Source: adapted by us from Finkler & León (2019, p. 7)
A sticky science
idea must be: ...must make the audience Communication about biodiversity loss is most effective when:
SIMPLE Unconfused - Containing relevant information (Schaffner et al., 2015) - Addressing the importance of biodiversity and the risk of decimating it (Novacek, 2008)
- Expressed accurately and in a well-structured and clear manner (Legagneux et al., 2018; Novacek, 2008)
10 UNEXPECTED Pay attention - Addressing the topic in a compelling way (Novacek, 2008)
CONCRETE Understand
and remember it
- The aim as well as the targeted group are carefully considered and deliberately defined (Kidd et al., 2019)
CREDIBLE Agree/
believe - Characterised by reflexive engagement and dialogue both from experts and non-experts (Legagneux et al., 2018)
- Making use of social norms (Kusmanoff et al., 2020) EMOTIONAL Care - Evoking positive emotions (Schaffner et al., 2015)
- There is a focus on ‘bright spot’ stories (White et al., 2020) - Communicated “in terms of proportional population decline over time (…) and number of remaining individuals” (Song & Schuldt, 2017, p.1706)
SCIENCE Connect with science
- Emphasising and resonating with the audience’s concerns (Kusmanoff et al., 2020)
- Using metaphors and/or icons (Legagneux et al., 2018)
- Clarifying that biodiversity has material and economic benefits and losing it has serious consequences (Mace, 2020)
- Reducing the psychological distance to the topic of biodiversity loss (Jones et al., 2016)
- Having a local approach (Bjærke, 2019)
- Empowering the agency of the viewer (Kusmanoff et al., 2020) - Exposing the viewer to nature and animating a connection to the natural world (Legagneux et al., 2018; Novacek, 2008)
- Inspiring the audience to view humans as a part of nature instead of detached from it (Saunders et al., 2006)
- Containing scientific information which is expressed accurately (Legagneux et al., 2018; Redford et al., 2012)
STORYTELLING Be able to act on it
- Making use of appropriate exemplary narratives (Bjærke, 2019) - Taking advantage of or steering clear of certain biases
(Kusmanoff et al., 2020)
11
5.1.1 Simple
The definition of simplicity incorporates defining the core idea and prioritising information (Finkler & León, 2019). A solid idea aids the audience in learning and remembering the vital message (Heath & Heath, 2008). Research in the field of biodiversity loss communication aligns with this. To raise public awareness about the topic of biodiversity loss and encourage engagement, the conveyed message would have to address the importance of biodiversity and the risk of decimating it clearly (Novacek, 2008). A communication strategy to promote biodiversity works best when it contains relevant information (Schaffner et al., 2015), which has to be expressed accurately and in a well-structured manner (Legagneux et al., 2018).
5.1.2 Unexpected
An effective way to gain the attention and interest of the audience is to kindle their curiosity and deviate from their anticipations by adding a factor of novelty in the story (Shimp & Andrews, 2013). This disruption of expectations could potentially create an emotional need in the audience by exposing knowledge gaps and filling them in the process (Heath & Heath, 2008). According to Lee and Kotler (2001), asking questions can help emphasise a message of beneficial change. As Novacek (2008) states, the message has to address the topic of biodiversity loss clearly and compellingly.
5.1.3 Concrete
Effective communication must make a complex topic understandable and easy to remember for the audience, turning an abstract concept into a concrete message (Finkler & León, 2019; Shimp & Andrews, 2013). Concerning the topic of biodiversity loss, the aim and targeted group must be carefully considered and deliberately defined (Kidd et al., 2019).
5.1.4 Credible
For a message to be authentic, it must be trustworthy and exude authority, which can be achieved by delivering proof as to why information should be acknowledged as a fact (Shimp & Andrews, 2013). Southwood (2011) argues that social norms create a form of social authority. Moreover, Kusmanoff et al. (2020) state that using social norms has the power to affect behavioural change when communicating about biodiversity loss. They note that social norms can be either descriptive norms, indicating what behaviour is appropriate, or injunctive
12 norms, indicating whether a particular behaviour is socially accepted. Messages highlighting that certain behaviour is socially accepted can help encourage the desired behaviour (Kusmanoff et al., 2020).
Furthermore, credibility and a high level of persuasion can be achieved through identification with sympathetic characters. Transportation can generate this connection with a character (Finkler & León, 2019). Credibility and persuasion are strongly amplified when characters appear likeable on-screen and inherit the skill to generate empathy within the audience (Finkler & León, 2019). Likability is also generated through fame and celebrity status (Shimp & Andrews, 2013). To make the topic of biodiversity loss credible, it is valuable to have communication characterised by reflexive engagement and dialogue both from experts and non-experts (Legagneux et al., 2018).
5.1.5 Emotional
Emotion overlaps with credibility since the honest display of an authentic human reaction increases a message’s validity (Voltz & Grobe, 2012 as cited in Finkler & León, 2019). It is, however, essential to consider the type of emotions that are shown and evoked. “For the most effective form of science storytelling in videos, then, it is best to create content that evokes emotions such as hope and awe but to avoid negative emotions such as sadness or fear” (Finkler & León, 2019, p. 9). A study called Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings,
facts, advice or appeals? found that “communication strategies using positive emotions led to
most favorable and least negative responses” (Schaffner et al., 2015, p. 273). Thus, a communication strategy to promote biodiversity works best when creating awareness, containing relevant information, recommending specific actions and evoking positive emotions (Schaffner et al., 2015). In addition, another study tested “affective reactions to losses and gains in biodiversity” (White et al., 2020, p.1) and found that the immediate emotional response is stronger when it comes to biodiversity gains rather than losses. Thus, a focus on ‘bright spot’ stories could encourage people’s engagement with the topic in general. A distinction in the extent of the loss or gain does not lead to stronger emotional reactions (White et al., 2020). Song and Schuldt (2017) concluded that the perceived risk of extinction is highest when it is communicated “in terms of proportional population decline over time (…) and number of remaining individuals (…), whereas the single-event probability of a species becoming extinct (…) engender[s] the least perceived risk” (Song & Schuldt, 2017, p.1706).
13
5.1.6 Science
Storytelling regarding science and, more specifically biodiversity loss, needs to find scientific elements that connect with the audience’s interests and lives (Saunders et al., 2006) and resonate with the audience’s concerns (Kusmanoff et al., 2020). One way of creating this connection is by using metaphors and/or icons (Legagneux et al., 2018). Metaphors can evoke powerful images and emotions and make complex scientific information easier to understand (Väliverronen & Hellsten, 2002). Icons, such as polar bears, can be used to make the audience relate to the problem through their values and experiences (Legagneux et al., 2018).
While emotions play an essential part in relating biodiversity loss to the audience’s lives, Mace (2020) argues that rational factors like valuation are also a crucial part of the solution. Valuation of biodiversity describes why biodiversity matters to humans. Making clear that biodiversity has material and economic benefits and losing it has serious consequences, shows that biodiversity loss should be taken seriously and should be given urgent notice (Legagneux et al., 2018; Mace, 2020; Novacek, 2008).
It is also important to reduce the psychological distance to the topic of biodiversity loss to get the audience engaged (Jones et al., 2016). “A message framed to emphasize that a problem will affect people like the audience themselves, will occur nearby, and will be highly likely to occur sometime soon helps reduce distance” (Kusmanoff et al., 2020, p.1136). Therefore, a local approach can raise the viewers’ awareness that biodiversity loss is related to their everyday life (Bjærke, 2019). It is significant to ensure that the viewer’s agency is not undermined but empowered to motivate behavioural change (Kusmanoff et al., 2020).
Another critical factor to engage people and influence their environmental behaviours is to expose them to nature, animate a connection to the natural world (Legagneux et al., 2018; Novacek, 2008) and inspire them to view humans as a part of nature instead of detached from it (Saunders et al., 2006). Humans have an instinctive love and need for nature, a natural affinity for life called biophilia (Wilson, 1984) which can be used as a key component to create motivating messages (Novacek, 2008). A too idealistic, picturesque and nostalgic
14 representation creates an abstract theme park-esque kind of Bio-Disney concept of nature (Evans, 1992 as cited in Väliverronen & Hellsten, 2002).
While all these elements are helpful to connect the viewer to the biodiversity loss issue, it is imperative that the information is scientific and is expressed accurately (Legagneux et al., 2018; Redford et al., 2012).
5.1.7 Storytelling
The concepts of story and storytelling were already defined (see 2.2) and it was established that the same story can be told in many different ways (Moezzi et al., 2017). The overall story of biodiversity loss contains many stories that can be told in various ways. To communicate the almost boundless stories of biodiversity loss to the public, exemplary narratives that draw upon the scientific lists of species in danger of going extinct, also known as red lists, can be useful (Bjærke, 2019). It is important to determine which species is portrayed as an example to benefit the objective since this brings some aspects to the foreground and obscures others. Different examples tell different parts of biodiversity loss, focusing on global or local aspects, the present or the future, and the effect on nature or the effect on humans (Bjærke, 2019). Choosing the correct exemplary narrative also has a lot to do with framing the conveyed message, which plays a vital role since it influences how the public responds to, judges and perceives the issue (Kusmanoff et al., 2020). Messages can be strategically framed by taking advantage of or steering clear of certain biases (Kusmanoff et al., 2020).
According to Finkler and León (2019, p. 7), “a sticky science idea must make the audience (…) be able to act on it”. Schaffner et al. (2015) state something similar and argue that a communication strategy to promote biodiversity works best when specific actions are recommended.
6. Material
For the analysis, three different audiovisual stories under twelve minutes were chosen: (1)
Rang-tan: the story of dirty palm oil (Greenpeace International, 2018), an animated
15 orangutan that escapes into a young girls’ bedroom after her mom has been killed and her home has been destroyed because of deforestation for palm oil. (2) “Dream” (WCFF, 2016, original quotation marks), an animated promotional video for the Wildlife Conservation Film Festival (WCFF) that tells a story based on real events of humans harming a few individual animals from different species. (3) The Birdman (Fordesman, 2020), a biographical short film made by Volvo and Sky Atlantic in partnership with Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust. The video tells the story of an ornithologist saving the bird species Mauritius Kestrel from extinction.
These audiovisual stories were chosen because they differ in production, visualisation, narrative, message and objective, thus providing a variety of content enriching the analysis’ results. For example, while Rang-tan: the story of dirty palm oil (Greenpeace International, 2018) has the explicit goal of getting the audience to sign a petition, “Dream” (WCFF, 2016, original quotation marks) takes a more indirect approach and promotes the WCFF which produces “interactive events around the finest independent films that promote sustainability and the conservation of biodiversity” (Wildlife Conservation Film Festival [WCFF], n.d.). Meanwhile, The Birdman (Fordesman, 2020) has no explicit biodiversity loss related objectives. Despite these different approaches and styles, the videos all communicate about the topic of biodiversity loss through audiovisual stories and draw attention to the problem. Using such contrasting audiovisual stories provides insight into which aspects best meet the OCC. These audiovisual stories are analysed to better understand what contemporary audiovisual stories communicate about biodiversity loss and how they do it. This analysis can determine what they do right and where they are lacking and can be improved.
7. Method
To answer the research questions, qualitative research on the three aforementioned short-format videos is performed. The qualitative analysis of the selected cases is done according to our analytical model (see 7.3, Table 2) to gain an in-depth understanding of the cases. Based on our theoretical framework for optimum communication criteria, we developed this analytical model consisting of practicable questions connected to each OCC. These questions show to what extent the videos are in line with the optimum communication criteria. Additionally, we want to know which components make the videos meet these criteria. Therefore, while answering these questions, the audiovisual stories are to be analysed by
16 looking at the content, the story itself, the linguistics, the visuals, and the audio. Selected tools offered by multimodal critical discourse analysis (MCDA) are assigned to the questions which they can help answer by analysing the linguistics or the visuals. These tools can help identify how certain ideas and values are subtly conveyed through texts and images: “we may be aware
what speakers or text producers are doing but not exactly how they do it” (Hansen and Machin,
2019, p.118, original italics). The tools of MCDA can help with finding the answer to the how question (Hansen and Machin, 2019).
7.1 Linguistic analysis tools
Lexical choices are simply the type of words that are chosen to write or say something. Things can be said in different ways, and they will technically still mean the same, but different word choices will make people interpret it differently. Using many difficult words can make a text seem more official and can seemingly give it a higher level of authority. For the linguistic elements to be analysed within the scope of our analytical model, selected MCDA tools (Machin and Mayr, 2012) are used that can directly support the analysis. A description of these selected tools is presented below.
7.1.1 Classification of social actors
Lexical choices also influence how characters are portrayed. There are different tools for analysing how words change the way characters are seen:
7.1.1.1 Personalisation and impersonalisation
This tool considers whether an individual person is named or an entire institution or even country, for example, if a student is named or a student association is mentioned instead. Using an institution rather than one person can give extra weight to a statement since it is not about only one person. Additionally, it can hide who is responsible for the mentioned actions.
7.1.1.2 Individualisation versus collectivisation
This tool refers to whether characters are described as individuals or as part of a collectivity. Individuals are either specifically named or referred to as part of a collectivity such as ‘militants’. Individualisation brings the viewer closer to the character and using additional personal details such as parenthood humanises them even further.
17 7.1.1.3 Nomination or functionalisation
If someone is nominised, they are called by their name and described according to who they are, and if someone is functionalised, they are called by their function and described according to what they do. ‘Baker’ or ‘activist’, for example, are functionalisations. Nomination personalises someone, while functionalisation can make someone sound more official.
7.1.1.4 Use of honorifics
Honorifics, such as ‘Doctor’ or ‘Lord’, suggest seniority or expertise. Including or excluding them can add or take away a sense of authority.
7.1.1.5 Aggregation
Aggregation means the quantification of characters and portraying them as statistics. This can make information seem more objective and scientifically credible even though the numbers are not specific or precise.
7.1.1.6 Pronoun versus noun: the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ division
Pronouns such as ‘us’, ‘we’ and ‘them’ can align groups or ideas alongside or against viewers.
7.1.2 Representing Action
Transitivity is a tool for analysing who (actor) does what (process) to whom (receiver) and how they do that. This tool can help to analyse what is in a text and what is missing. Whether someone is represented as doing or as something being done to them can reveal underlying ideas. For example, someone can ‘win’ a price or ‘be given’ a price. In the first case, the actor is active, and in the second, they are passive. There are two relevant types of processes for describing an action:
7.1.2.1 Material processes
The process of doing, such as ‘falling’, ‘demolishing’, and ‘walking’. These words can be literal but also metaphorical. For example, ‘the argument was demolished’.
7.1.2.2 Mental processes
The process of sensing (cognition, affection and perception): ‘understanding’, ‘liking’, ‘seeing’. Often, because of this internal view, the characters who are the actors in these mental processes gain more sympathy from the viewer. This sympathy can also be carried over to the receiver of this mental process. For example, if a character worries about another character, it
18 indirectly implies that the receiver is worth worrying about. Using mental processes can also tell the viewer how they will feel about a particular action, thing or situation and thus make this feeling a social norm.
7.1.3 Metaphors
A metaphor can be analysed by looking at the following domains:
Target domain: What is it that needs to be described through the metaphor Source domain: Which concept is used to describe the target domain
The chosen source domain can highlight or obscure certain parts of the target domain. Therefore it is important to look at which source domain was chosen and why.
7.1.4 Modals
Modals say something about the identity and authority of the character or writer. Modals are words like ‘may’, ‘should’ and ‘will’. The more surely stated, the more sense of power it gives the character or writer. Less surely stated sentences can be a protection of criticism.
7.2 Visual analysis tools
Hansen and Machin (2019) and Machin and Mayr (2012) comprehensively describe MCDA tools for analysing visuals, which we draw upon to enhance our analytical model.
The primary tool is iconography, according to Barthes (1977). Iconography encompasses what is depicted (denotation) and the created meaning behind that representation (connotation). Various elements of a visual production can carry connotations, which evoke ‘metaphorical associations‘ (Hansen & Machin, 2019). Meaning-making is used to communicate ideas and values. While analysing connotations, it is safe to draw from established meanings. Abstract visuals are a sign of high connotative intentions (Machin & Mayr, 2012). Hence, the less real an image is depicted, the more meaning it holds.
In this case, the focus is on Settings, Attributes, Representing Characters, Salience and
Modality, which will be described more precisely hereafter as the appropriate MCDA tools for
the kind of analysis we propose.
7.2.1 Settings
In a setting, it is important to recognise what is foregrounded and backgrounded and what is represented or omitted (Machin and Mayr, 2012).
19
7.2.2 Attributes
In addition, the choice of shown objects and the way they are depicted has a high meaning potential (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
7.2.3 Representing Characters
It is essential to look at how characters are represented, what attitude and identity they radiate through their pose and gaze and how they are positioned in relation to the viewer in terms of angle and distance (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
7.2.3.1 Individualisation versus collectivisation
How the characters are represented influences what facets of their identity are highlighted or excluded. A character can either be shown as an individual or in a group, be described explicitly or generalised. They can also have no representation at all (Hansen and Machin, 2019). Individually depicted characters invite the audience to hone in on the story through them. However, depiction as a group leads to collectivisation. A generalised representation through stereotypes has the effect that the character's individuality vanishes. A high meaning potential also exists when a character is completely excluded (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
7.2.3.2 Pose
The character's posture – an open or closed pose, the amount of space it takes up, the level of performance and intensity – is an indicator for identities, values and attitudes (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
7.2.3.3 Gaze
The character's gaze plays an integral part in the relationship between the audience and on-screen characters (Machin & Mayr, 2012). When there is eye contact between the character and the viewer, the audience is addressed and recognised, entering a relationship, and the demand for a response is created (Machin & Mayr, 2012). With no eye contact, the audience merely becomes an observer, and there is a disconnection between the two (Hansen & Machin, 2019). If the gaze goes off frame, the viewer is asked to imagine what the character is thinking. A glance up or down creates high metaphorical associations in western culture. Up is usually associated with positive, wealthy and light traits, whereas down suggests negative, poor or grounded attributes. A gaze that goes directly outwards connotes that the character tackles issues head-on (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
20 7.2.3.4 Distance
The distance is determined by choosing a close, medium or long shot and influences the aloofness or intimacy of a scene (Hansen and Machin, 2019). It signifies the social relations between the viewer and the characters (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
7.2.3.5 Angle
The choice of angle influences the engagement of the viewer with the characters. A vertical
angle affects power relations between the two, the horizontal angle determines the level of
involvement or detachment of the viewer, and an oblique angle can create a feeling of commotion (Hansen & Machin, 2019). Looking down at a character creates a sense of vulnerability, while a sense of power can emerge when they are looked up to. If the vertical angle is kept at eye level, a sense of equal relation is created. When the angle is face-to-face, the viewer is involved and confronted in a scene, whereas they are put into a more observing position when a side angle is chosen. A close-up and side angle combination suggests an alignment with the character and puts the audience in a shared position. If a character is shown from behind, the audience is invited to take their perspective (Machin & Mayr, 2012).
7.2.4 Salience
This tool described by Hansen and Machin (2019) helps to reveal the most important aspects in the frame composition. This can be done by looking at the size, colour, tone and focus of represented elements, as well as what is foregrounded or overlapping. An element that is put in front of others or prominently catches the audience's eye through, for example, bright colours or dominant sizing, is more significant than others.
7.2.5 Modality
This tool helps to analyse how the naturalistic depiction has been modified and what potential meaning this creates. There are several markers of visual modality (Machin & Mayr, 2012): (1) The extend of articulation of a character’s or an object’s detail, (2) the backgrounds level of articulation of detail, (3) light and shadow as well as (4) choice and quality of colours with particular attention to the modification of tone, modulation and saturation (Hansen & Machin, 2019; Machin & Mayr, 2012). Of particular importance is to what extent the visuals were altered from their accurate naturalistic presentation, which can affect the mood, intensity of emotions, and how truthful and transparent or concealed and ambiguous the visualisation appears (Machin & Mayr, 2012). For example, an animation carries significant meaning in its
21 alteration from the actual depiction, and its modality needs to be carefully examined and questioned. A visualisation with a lowered modality is far from its realistic depiction, which leaves room for interpretation and tends to have a symbolising or idealising effect. An increased modality enhances realistic details and gives relevance to the depicted time and place, objects or characters (Hansen and Machin, 2019).
7.3 Analytical model on audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss
Table 2:Analytical model on audiovisual stories about biodiversity loss
Optimum Communication Criteria
Practicable questions Useful MCDA tools
SIMPLE 1. What is the core message of the video?
2. What information does the video provide to address the importance of biodiversity and the risk of
decimating it?
Visually:
- Settings - Attributes 3. How is the information communicated – Simple
and clear or complex and confusing?
Linguistically: - Lexical choices Visually: - Salience - Settings - Attributes UNEXPECTED 1. How does the video generate interest and curiosity
through elements (story, verbally, visually, audio) of novelty? Visually: - Setting - Attributes - Represented Characters - Modality
2. Which questions does the video raise?
3. How does the video answer the raised questions? CONCRETE 1. How is the information presented (verbally,
visually) - in a concrete or abstract way?
Visually:
- Attributes - Salience 2. What is the objective/intention of the video? Is it
concrete or abstract?
22 CREDIBLE 1. How does the video create (linguistics, visuals,
audio) a sense of authority?
Linguistically: Classification of social actors (functionalisation, honorifics, aggregation) - Modals Visually: - Representing characters
2. What support does the video give for why the information should be accepted as a fact?
Linguistically:
- Modals 3. How (story, linguistics, visuals, audio) is character
identification achieved through sympathetic characters? Linguistically: - Classification of social actors - Representing action Visually: - Representing characters - Modality
4. How does the video make use of social norms (descriptive and injunctive norms)?
Linguistically: - Representing action
- Modals EMOTIONAL 1. Does the video focus on emotional appeal or
rationally based models?
Linguistically:
- Classification of social actors (aggregation) 2. What kind of emotions (positive, negative) does the
video evoke and how does it do that (story, linguistics, visuals, audio)?
Linguistically:
- Representing action
Visually:
- Representing characters - Modality
3. Does the video communicate biodiversity loss, or does it feature 'bright spot' stories (gains in
biodiversity)? Linguistically: - Representing action Visually: - Setting - Attributes - Representing Characters - Salience 4. Does the positive or negative approach fit the
23 SCIENCE 1. Which metaphors or icons are used in the video? Linguistical:
- Metaphors 2. How does the video reduce the psychological
distance to the topic?
3. How does the video emphasise what humans gain from conservation (economic values, human
wellbeing, ecosystem services)?
4. How does the video create (story, linguistics, visuals, audio) a connection between the natural world and the audience?
Linguistically: - Classification of social actors - Representation of action Visually: - Setting - Attributes - Representing characters - Modality
STORYTELLING 1. How can the story of the video be summarised briefly (structure, plot, characters, time and space)? 2. Which exemplary narratives does the video use to foreground aspects of biodiversity loss and obscure others (global/local, present/future, effect on nature/ effect on humans)? Linguistically: - Classification of social actors Visually: - Representing characters 3. Which specific actions does the video recommend?
24
8. Analysis
8.1 Rang-tan: the story of dirty palm oil
This is a 1:30-minute animated short video produced by Greenpeace International (2018).
8.1.1 Simple
The video's core message is that humans are destroying rainforests to plant palm oil trees, and as a result, many orangutans who live in these forests die. The video does not show or tell which importance orangutans have and why it would be harmful to lose so many of them, but it instead focuses on the emotional aspect of animals dying. The message is conveyed clearly and simply. The type of language used is a simple rhyme which makes it easy to follow and some words are even simplified, for instance, "Rang-tan" and "teddies" [0:05]. This in combination with the animation style, makes it seem like it was made for children.
Visually, the information is also communicated clearly and simply. The video directly shows objects from everyday life (attributes) – a chocolate bar and a shampoo bottle – that are connected to palm oil in the first part and then takes the viewer into the rainforest to show the deforestation happening. Through large (distance) and overhead shots (angle), the destruction of the forest is clearly depicted [0:32-0:54]; machines are cutting down trees while trucks and factories take over the forest.
At 0:14, the young orangutan takes a yellow chocolate bar into her hand and throws it away. The bar then flies toward the viewer, getting gradually bigger until it takes up the left side of the screen (salience) and leaves the frame. The orangutan then moves on to a shampoo bottle. She looks at it [0:15], touches it, and at 0:16, a close up of the shampoo bottle is depicted, with the orangutan placed behind it. A direct connection between the character and the represented two objects is made through the orangutan's gaze
and action. Using the tool of salience, it becomes clear that the orangutan seems to be less important than the two featured objects (see Figure 1), which indicates that the consumption of palm oil products surpasses the value of the animal. The chocolate bar and the shampoo bottle are in terms of size and foregrounding depicted more prominently than the
Figure 1: Orangutan behind shampoo bottle (Greenpeace International, 2018, 0:16)
25 orangutan. This becomes especially clear when the shampoo bottle is placed in front of the orangutan, overlapping him significantly.
8.1.2 Unexpected:
The video features a setting and a character that do not come together in real life, creating an element of novelty for the viewer. The setting is a children’s bedroom. However, immediately in the first second of the video, a young orangutan enters the frame and clambers about the room, invading the child’s safe space. A switch of perspective occurs, placing humans in the shoes of the animal. The girl says, “she destroys all of my house plants” [0:08], which makes it clear that now, instead of humans destroying the rainforests, it is the orangutan who is damaging the houseplants. The house plant also creates a connection to the original habitat of the orangutan. She tries to climb it [0:10 - 0:12], but it falls over and lands on the floor because it is not strong enough to hold her. This occurrence indicates that the main character does not fit the setting.
Another element of novelty is the rhyming narration that sounds like a children’s bedtime story. The video starts with the girl repeatedly saying, “There’s a Rang-tan in my bedroom, and I don’t know what to do” [0:00; 0:17], but after the turning point, it is the orangutan saying, “There’s a human in my forest, and I don’t know what to do” [0:33; 0:40]. This repetition emphasises that humans would not want orangutans in their homes, just like orangutans do not want humans in their natural habitat. Additionally, the viewer is asked to wonder what the orangutan is doing in this girl’s bedroom. The girl later literally raises that question by asking the orangutan what she is doing there [0:28]. This moment marks the turning point of the video, and the question is immediately answered. A flashback is shown of humans destroying the orangutan’s habitat and her losing her mother, which is why she went to look for refuge in the girl’s room.
Additionally, the repeated use of the phrase “I don’t know what to do” raises the question of what it is that can be done to save the orangutans. This question is answered at the end of the video when the girl says, “now I do know what to do.” [1:00] and explains how she will try to help.
26
8.1.3 Concrete
The information is mainly told concretely, but it is also simplified fitting the tone of a children’s story. Sentences like “You destroyed all of our trees for your food and your shampoo” [0:36], “They’re burning it for palm oil” [0:52] and “Dedicated to the 25 orangutans we lose everyday” [1:21] concretely tell what the issue is. It is explained that palm oil is used for shampoo and food, and it is suggested that one of these foods is chocolate. Additionally, on the palm oil objects, the following phrases can be read on the packaging; “xtra smooth chocolate” [0:14] and “silky shampoo” [0:15]. These word choices could subtly indicate what the function of palm oil is in such products. However, these are simplified examples and using words like
processed foods, cosmetics, and biofuel would explain the use of palm oil more broadly. Even
so, it can be seen as a justified choice to use these simplified examples to focus on what matters most and make the message easier to understand. Additionally, the video could have been more concrete in explaining what happens to the orangutans. “He took away my mother, and I’m scared he’ll take me too” [0:44] and “Dedicated to the 25 orangutans we lose everyday” [1:21] is the only information given to the viewer regarding what happens to these animals because of deforestation. It is unclear whether they are, for example, actively killed or taken or if they starve because of lack of food. The visual contribution also only vaguely hints at what happens to them. While it is clearly shown how trees are being cut down and replaced by palm oil trees, it is not clearly shown what happens to the orangutans. They are seen as observing and fleeing from the destruction, and at 0:44, it is only vaguely suggested that the mother is weak and perhaps dying, indicated through her limp pose. Once again, this vagueness can be seen as a justified choice fitting the tone of a children’s story and allowing the video to focus on the core message.
The animation depicts a low modality, featuring a child-like drawing style comprising rough outlines and a generally low level of detail. The presentation of information as such is kept rather abstract. While most of the visuals are merely sketched, only the relevant objects are given more detail, such as the chocolate bar, the shampoo bottle and, at 1:07, a painting which the girl holds up to the camera, stating “Save my Friend“. At 0:32 – when the audience gets drawn into the perspective of the orangutan and the setting changes to the rainforest – the visualisation, while still abstract, gets more concrete in its depiction of shapes and features a slightly blurry black and white style, leaving the children’s drawing style behind. Only the orangutan is kept in a bright saturated orange colour (see Figure 2). This depiction is in stark
27 contrast to the bedroom setting, featuring friendly,
varied and somewhat realistic colours. The change of articulation in detail, while reducing the colours to black and white (modality), communicates abstractly that this is a change of perspective and a flashback. It creates a feeling of sudden reality and truthfulness while giving special importance to the orangutan through its bright colour (salience).
While the video seems to be addressing children, as suggested by the chosen animation style and tone of narration, the goal of the video is to have the viewers sign a petition. This objective indicates that the target audience consists of adults. Therefore, the style could have been chosen to make the orangutans seem more innocent and endearing, motivating viewers to care for them.
8.1.4 Credible
Although the video does not exude any explicit authority, the audience could perceive that the information presented is trustworthy because of the source of the video: Greenpeace, which is a large, well-known, and well-respected non-profit environmental organisation. The G of the Greenpeace logo is placed in the bottom right corner, letting the viewer visually know who the producer and sender is. The logo is also placed in its complete visualisation at the end of the video as a signature. Additionally, the video ends with the number of orangutans that die every day. This is a form of aggregation, which can make information seem more objective and scientifically credible. Another way the video exudes credibility is through likeable characters. There are two main characters in the story, and both do not have a name. The girl is not named at all, and the orangutan is always referred to as Rang-tan, which is a form of functionalisation. Even though the orangutan is not given a personal name, a more endearing term is used instead of the actual species’ name. This term personalises the character slightly more, and, in addition, she talks about losing her mother, which personalises her even further. The orangutan is also presented as being scared in the following sentence; “and I’m scared he’ll take me too” [0:45] and as desperate by continuously saying “I don’t know what to do” and described as “feeling blue” [1:04], which are mental processes that gain more sympathy from the viewer.
Identification with the two sympathetic characters of the video is enhanced through certain choices of visualisation. The young orangutan and the little girl are represented as individuals,
Figure 2: Deforestation (Greenpeace International, 2018, 0:37)
