"The Ethics of Visual Rhetoric & Photo Manipulation"

About the Author

Amber McDonnell is a second-year master's student in Auburn University's technical and professional communication program. Her principal academic interests are rhetoric and ethics in new media. Additionally, she teaches English composition as a graduate assistant and enjoys finding ways to incorporate new media in the classroom. When she isn't attending class or teaching, she enjoys taking photos, cooking, and playing with her rescue dog, Eddie.

Contents

Introduction

Methods

Scenario

Scenario (Cont.)

Analysis: Visual Rhetoric

Analysis: Ethical Scope

Analysis: Ethical Theories

Discussion

Conclusion

Works Cited

 Visual Rhetoric: Power and Responsibility

Rhetoric can be defined as persuasive or effective communication. Defined by Aristotle, rhetoric is “an ability, in each particular case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Kennedy, 2007, I.1.2). Rhetoric can occur in the written word or in visual representations such as photographs, charts, and maps. Since rhetorical representations are persuasive, they hold some level of influence over audiences. Words and visuals can persuade an audience to take some sort of action, buy a product, or change their opinion on a particular topic. With such influence, communicators should take responsibility for their work and practice ethical communication.

Bruno Latour writes about the power that visual inscriptions have over an audience and the influence that such visuals are meant to have. Latour writes about scientists and their reliance on visuals in order to convince laypeople that their findings and developments are genuine or valid. However, he makes a compelling argument for the persuasive nature of visuals in general. Latour (1986) writes:

Who will win in an agonistic encounter between two authors, and between them and all the others they need to build up a statement? Answer: the one able to muster on the spot the largest number of well-aligned and faithful allies. This definition of victory is common to war, politics, law, and, I shall now show, to science and technology. My contention is that writing and imaging cannot by themselves explain the changes in our scientific societies, except insofar as they help to make this agonistic situation more favorable. (p. 5)

Latour makes the point that visuals do what the written word cannot—they offer a variable of proof that can enlist “well-aligned and faithful allies” that will lead to victory. In technical communication, we may use images to ensure the proper execution of instructions in order to achieve victory (victory being our user’s success in assembling an item, completing a tutorial, etc.). In public relations, images can be used to gain allies in order to boost a person or company’s public image, resulting in victory for the public relations expert and their client. Such influence and power should be met with responsibility, which is where best practices in ethics come into play. Our rhetorical choices must be checked by ethical decision-making. Since technical communicators and public relations experts rely on visual rhetoric to gain allies, we might consider visuals and public relations as well as visuals and technical communication to be innately linked.

Nancy Allen (1996) draws a distinct line between the responsibilities of technical communicators to use best ethical practices in visual rhetoric, as compared to those who work in more creative fields, like advertising or fiction writing. Unlike practitioners in these fields, our role is not to “suspend disbelief” for the sake of art or creativity, but rather we are tasked with accurately portraying reality (p. 88). Technical work, and even the work of journalists and public relations specialists, requires the honest and accurate communication of information in order to be considered ethical. While photographs, by their very nature, are inherent mediations of reality, further alteration of such images can verge into inaccuracy. While photo manipulation for artistic purposes is useful, it should be used responsibly when aimed to persuade an audience or achieve a Latourian victory. This is all to say that the work of technical communicators and those who perform similar rhetorical work should be accurate before it is creative; and if a photo alters (rather than mediates) reality, then is it accurate?

Additionally, Allen considers the manipulation of images, referring to a New York Times article that suggested that photo alteration had become so common and so advanced that most audiences would not be able to point it out (p. 88). In the BP case, the alteration was not so advanced, but it took bloggers to point out the discrepancies between the original and doctored photos and news media outlets to disperse these claims in order for the intended audience of the photos to even be aware of the alterations. While photo manipulation has become common, especially in advertising, does it have a place in public relations responses to massive environmental disasters? Where do we draw the line in terms of reality mediation and persuasion?