The Politics of Disaster

Q: Is it ethical to use images of 9/11 in an ad to sway voters? What if those images are combined with an image of fire "Photoshopped" onto an image of the Statue of Liberty or another U.S. landmark? What is too far?

A: Images of 9/11, either manipulated or accurate, can be used to create false associations that deceive the public, and such use is always unethical.

Images have a much stronger and lasting emotional impact than words alone, so the use of images of 9/11 should be carefully considered. If the images are used to recall the horrors of the event, they can have a number of effects, both psychological and sociological. (Go to www.campaignline.com to read about the effects.)

Because so many of the possible, and even unintended, effects of the use of 9/11 images are negative and contribute little to helping people think clearly or deliberate carefully, there are few uses of 9/11 images that could be deemed ethical. It would be unethical to use 9/11 images in a general way, as a tactic to induce a general atmosphere of fear, and it would also be unethical to manipulate them to escalate their fearful aspects.

A case might be made that unmanipulated 9/11 images could be used to draw attention to a failed anti-terrorism policy, to the denial of promised funds for rebuilding, to unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, or other such issues directly related to the events of 9/11. However, given the possible unintended outcomes of such images, it would be the high road to show images of the actual problems resulting from failed policy, rather than past traumas.

Q: Should campaigns play on the fears of voters in ads, whether for social or national security issues?

A: The coercive use of fear has a long tradition in American society, beginning with the Calvinist Puritans of the seventeenth century. Much religious revivalism in American Christianity still relies on fear of damnation and hell, so the use of fear may seem warranted. Playing on people's fears can be very effective, but stirring up images, unspecified, or overblown fear is not ethical. Using fear to destabilize a society and control a population are among the goals of terrorism. Encouraging fear as the basis of decision-making tends to make people intellectually rigid and emotionally gullible. Neither trait is conducive to the maintenance of a healthy democracy.

Although real danger sometimes means important decisions have to be made under fearful conditions, people's capacities to make choices based on evidence, analysis, and careful consideration are reduced when they are especially fearful or anxious. In addition, the frequent use of fear tactics can inure the public to real danger, as the boy who cried wolf too many times learned.

Q: Some conservative commentators have been critical of several Democratic ads portraying Michael J. Fox and his support of stem cell research. Both sides use celebrities and others in ads and on campaigns to drive their point. Is it ethical to use a person with an illness to make a point?

A: If celebrities or others with an illness give their knowing consent to support an ad and public campaign about their illness, it is ethical for them to do so. Such actions constitute a willing choice to make their illness public. It would be unethical to use people with an illness without their consent. In cases where obtaining consent is impossible, it would be doubly unethical to use them.

Q: Web ads have grown in popularity this cycle. Is it ethical to be more vicious or have a different standard for ads that are made for the Web and may never appear on TV?

A: I think this question is somewhat like saying someone is a little bit pregnant. Public communication is just that: public. The question of ethics in ads does not relate to the means of public communication, but to what is communicated. Though web ads may have a smaller audience than TV, the same standards for public communication apply.

[Author Affiliation]

Rita Nakashima Brock, Ph.D., a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), is founding co-director of Faith Voices for the Common Good. She was a religion professor for 20 years and is an award-winning author of books in Christian theology.