Every map is an argument, not a neutral record

Jennings argues that mapmaking always involves choices that shape perception, whether or not the mapmaker intends any bias: what projection to use, what to place at the center, which borders to draw firmly versus leave ambiguous, and what information to omit for clarity all subtly influence how viewers understand relative size, importance, and relationships between places.

He points to well-known projection controversies, where certain widely used map projections distort the visual size of continents in ways that happen to make regions near the poles look larger relative to equatorial regions than their true landmass would suggest, as one concrete illustration of how a supposedly neutral tool encodes real interpretive choices.

His broader point is that treating any map as simply 'the truth' about geography misses how much interpretation is baked into its construction — every map is somebody's argument about what matters and how it should be shown, even when that argument isn't stated explicitly.

Takeaway: the next time you look at a map, ask what choices about centering, scale, or omission are shaping your impression of the world without your noticing.