“The Ethics of Visual Rhetoric & Photo Manipulation”
by Amber McDonnell | Xchanges 10.2/11.1
Introduction
Visual rhetoric is both a powerful and complex tool available to most technical communicators in their area(s) of work. Images, charts, graphs, maps, and other inscriptions yield great influence over an audience in technical illustrations, technical manuals, web documents, print documents, and many other arenas. The power and influence of visuals, partnered with their unavoidable presence in our daily lives, make them an effective tool across disciplinary boundaries. With such power, visuals present the risk of, all too easily, swaying their audiences in an unethical fashion. The use and misuse of visual rhetoric seems, at first, to be a simple case for decision-makers (if a visual is used dishonestly, then it is unethical). However, the complicated nature of visuals, their subject matter, their interpretations, and their influence present a challenge for those who employ such representations in their work.
An example of the power and influence created by visual rhetoric lies in BP’s public response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that occurred in April 2010. The multinational, multibillion-dollar oil and gas company was faced with a public relations and risk communication crisis after a methane gas explosion (and consequent wellhead blowout) caused one of their contracted oilrigs to sink in the Gulf of Mexico. Rather than choosing against photographic coverage of their response efforts, the company chose to alter several photographs using photo manipulation software in order to bolster their public image. Due to the poor quality of the photo manipulations, the alterations first became clear to attorney and AmericaBlog founder John Aravosis and Gizmodo editor-in-chief Brian Barrett. After their blog posts were published on the issue, media outlets like CBS News and the Washington Post became interested in BP’s decision to use photo manipulation software to doctor photos.
I would like to specify here what I mean by “alterations” and the “manipulation” of photographs. Photographs and other visual representations are mediated both by human and mechanical means. Photos, for instance, are mediated by the camera’s technical capabilities and the photographer’s manipulation of such capabilities. In this way, reality is translated differently depending on: technical capabilities like photo quality (or resolution) and focal length of a camera (how far the lens can zoom in or out); and the photographer’s method of framing the shot and manipulating the camera’s settings, such as shutter speed, aperture, and white balance. Therefore, photographers, in a sense, create what their audience perceives as reality. However, when you add photo manipulation software to the mix, reality and truth become even more complex.
What the BP case offers to the technical communicator is a deeper look into an ethical issue that many will find relevant to their own work. This case study will attempt to confront and complicate what seems to be a simple ethical dilemma by reviewing literature on ethical and rhetorical theory relevant to visuals, analyzing BP’s manipulated photos in connection with the pressure the company’s executives (and contracted employees) were under, and applying this knowledge to the decision-making process in order to draw a more coherent and thoughtful conclusion on BP’s actions.