This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Francisco August 2006.
I am not the author. If you have questions about this paper,
please contact the author directly.
If you have questions about the archives, email rakyat [ at ]
eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
The TARES Test as an Ethical Analysis Tool:
Assessing the Ethicality of Direct Response Television Programs
In recent years, scholars (Grunig and Hunt 1984; Kelly 1995;
Baker & Martinson 2001) have proposed several "tests" for determining
the ethicality of persuasive mediated messages. Baker & Martinson
suggest a five-part test called the TARES test. That test is popular
with students in beginning media ethics classes because it is easy to
remember and its application quickly reveals the complexity of
analyzing the ethicality of mediated persuasion. Baker and Martinson
propose the test for persuaders creating messages within an
acceptable ethical framework. They assert that their goal in
proposing the test is fourfold: to operationalize ethical theory; to
facilitate ethical thinking; to be useful from a teaching standpoint;
and to increase ethical practice by persuaders (p. 159). The test is
proposed mainly as a means for those creating the message to have a
handy checklist available, a means to consider if what they are
creating is ethical by asking questions of themselves and their
colleagues before the message is disseminated.
Can the test be used to evaluate the message's ethicality
after it is sent? Baker and Martinson are less clear on whether their
test can be used in this manner. This paper proposes to use the TARES
test to determine the ethicality of a complex series of persuasive
messages that have rarely been studied: that of television
fundraising programs for world hunger modeled after the more visible
form of advertising called the infomercial.
The TARES test
Five dimensions comprise the TARES test—truthfulness,
accuracy, respect, equity and social responsibility. In presenting
the test, the authors argue that the ultimate end of ethical
communication will be confused unless advertisers and public
relations practitioners reach some level of agreement as to the moral
end of our communication efforts. The ultimate end, they say, is for
persuasive communication to respect the individual to whom the
communication is directed, allowing that individual to make a
voluntary choice. This infers that such communication will show a
genuine respect for the persons being persuaded by the advertisement.
The authors draw on Grunig and Hunt's (1984) conception of ethical
media communication as a two-way symmetrical relationship, one in
which those selling a product and those purchasing a product each
find satisfaction. Selling a product, from the advertiser's
perspective, should be seen as an intermediate goal, undertaken with
an important social and individual end in mind. The communication is
ethical only if, "it provides, as a relative last end, genuinely
truthful information" (p., 154). Otherwise, "persuaders inevitably
will begin to embrace something approaching social Darwinism in which
the goal too often is to succeed at all costs—or at least to succeed
through the use of any means that does not violate the letter of the
law" (p. 153). This is not to exclude appeals to emotions as well as
logic. As Jaksa and Pritchard note (1994, p. 77), "even when
evidence or proof is not available, those capable of rational choice
are respected only if manipulative and deceptive tactics are avoided."
The TARES dimensions, for the purpose of this paper, have been
enhanced with additional questions relevant to the topic of direct
response television programming raising funds to help people living
in poverty or distress caused by a famine, civil war or other disaster.
Truthfulness. The truthfulness question asks: "Are the ad
claims, both verbal and visual, truthful? If the message communicates
only part of the truth (and many persuasive messagers do this
ethically) are the omissions deceptive? (Patterson and Wilkins 2005,
p. 62). If the omissions are not deceptive and a true human need
exists, then Baker & Martinson say the communication could pass this
ethical test. For humanitarian agency fundraising using DRT,
additional questions should be: Is this a realistic portrayal of the
situation that exists, or an exaggeration—either showing only the
worst case scenario, or claiming that people will die without the
immediate response of the viewer? A second question concerns the
funds raised. Do they go for the causes for which they are being
raised? In other words, will the organization serve as a good
steward of these funds to maximize their usefulness?
Authenticity. Patterson and Wilkins link authenticity with
both motive and sincerity. "Is there a sincere need for this product
within the range of products and services available? Second, are the
reasons given the consumer purchasing the product presented in such a
way that they also would motivate the person who developed and wrote
the ad?" (2005, p, 63). An authentic communicator must believe in the
product and be willing to take personal responsibility for advocating
it. Baker & Martinson additionally ask, "Do I truly believe people
will benefit?" (2001, p. 163).
Respect. The question for the creator of the persuasive
message is this: "Have I respected the receivers of this persuasive
message by appealing to their higher inclinations and their basic
goodness, by not pandering, exploiting or appealing to their lower or
baser inclinations?" (Baker & Martinson 2001, p. 165) Does this
communication show a respect for human life? Or are people merely
treated as means to an end? Jaksa and Pritchard (1994, p. 128) argue
that human beings are "beyond price" and that advertisers need to
create their messages with this as a foremost ethical consideration.
The respect dimension also includes a consideration of whether any
religious beliefs are treated with respect, should the message use an
appeal to religious values Finally, a consideration needs to be made
for all stakeholders, everyone who will be affected by the
communication. In this light, additional questions for this study
are: Is the ad depicting the recipients of the funds and services as
fully human, and capable, under the right circumstances, of assuming
all manner of human behavior, including rational concern for their
own well-being?
Equity. The ethical test here is whether the persuasion places both
the creator and the recipient on a mutual standing. Is an ad's copy
written, for instance, to ensure that all recipients can interpret
the message given a common understanding? Or does it present the
company or firm as standing for a noble goal or philosophy that,
indeed, all its competitors must stand for? In the context of appeals
for funds for humanitarian causes, there needs to be some likelihood
that the audience can find corroborating evidence of this need from
sources other than the television program. Further, are the claims
of success made by the organization subject to verification?
Social Responsibility. Baker & Martinson suggest that the
socially responsible advertiser considers the effect their ad might
have on the larger culture. Ideas of justice require that persuasive
communicators "must take seriously the challenge of defining how they
can positively serve the traditionally under-represented in society"
(Martinson 1998, p. 148). These ideas have implications for how the
people in need are depicted and whether those depictions further
unhealthy stereotypes about the desire of others to be
self-supporting. Finally, does the action promote a kind of world
the advertiser would want to live in?
Baker & Martinson propose the TARES test as prima facie
duties. Yet they acknowledge that moral dilemmas can take place when
elements of the ethical tests collide. "In situations in which prima
facie duties conflict, one must decide which of the principles has
the greatest moral claim on one in a given context. Violation of one
of the principles can be justified only by well-motivated adherence
to another of the prima facie duties" (p, 171).
World Vision and Direct Response Television
This returns us to the question of whether the TARES Test can
be used by ethicists to make judgments about the ethicality of
persuasive messages. To consider this question, we need to evaluate
an artifact. Direct Response Television is a technique of putting
direct mail techniques into a visual format. The use of television to
raise money for philanthropic causes pre-dates the formation of its
methodological cousin, the infomercial (Waters, 1995). In the
nonprofit world, the most visible forms of direct response television
(DRT) fundraising is the telethon, although in recent years, agencies
like World Vision, Feed the Children and St. Jude's Children's
Hospital have used DRT in the form of half-hour or one-hour "special
reports" that are part infomercial and part docudrama. The programs
are shown on commercial and cable television with the agency paying
for the time slot as a long-form of advertising.
The pioneer in the development of this form of DRT is World
Vision. World Vision is a 56-year-old Christian humanitarian agency
which says its mission is: "Enabling the world's children to reach
their God-given potential." The agency funds--and then either
manages or provides planning and technical expertise--emergency
relief, long-term development and leadership training projects in
more than 100 nations. In the United States, the organization raised
$806.8 million from private donors, the U.S. government, foundations
and corporations for domestic in fiscal year 2004. Worldwide the
organization's total income was $1.5 billion, three times the income
of well-known agencies such as CARE (Stafford, 2005). During the
formative stage of television fundraising, roughly from 1972 to 1982,
income of the Federal Way, Wash. based organization grew from $4.5
million annually to $94.5 million (Waters, 1998).The organization
regularly appears in popular magazine and trade group assessments as
an organization that uses funds efficiency. It is among the "10 Most
Viewed" charities at Charity Navigator and is a four-star rated
charity, that organization's top rank for nonprofit agencies.
A consideration of this form of fundraising is important as
the fundraising strategies of nonprofit agencies are an increasing
focus of scholarly inquiry (Bennett, & Kottasz, 2000; Jacobson, 1986;
Layton, 1987; Kelly, 1995; Panas, 1984; Payton, 1987; Seargent, 1999;
Willmer, Schmidt & Smith, 1989). A British study of emergency
fund-raising by humanitarian agencies found that successful campaigns
employed, "unashamedly emotive advertising imagery," to shock and
hold an audience (Bennett and Kottasz, 2000). The victims themselves
should be portrayed as deserving people who are destitute and the
poorer the country is perceived to be by the receiver, the more
likely she is to respond to a solicitation for funds. "Depictions of
children in need seemingly represent a major fund-raising
trigger. Imagery of this type may be patronising and demean and
stereotype the people shown in advertisements, yet apparently are the
most effective for raising large amounts of money in a short period"
(Bennett and Kottasz, 2000). That study also advises people preparing
fundraising materials to avoid references to any civil wars or racial
or tribal warfare that might be triggering the human tragedy and that
appeals to human rights violations don't seem to motivate people to
give. A final piece of advice is to target religious people and
families as those people are more likely to give, based on their
station in life or faith-based orientation.
Most assessments of the fundraising strategies of
organizations like World Vision that have employed rhetorical or
critical methodologies (Bentham, 1993; deWaal, 1997; Moeller, 1999;
Wolfe, 2000; and Jeffries, 2002) have found the appeals to be
emotionally over-wrought, ethnocentric and deceptive. Those will be
discussed later in this paper.
Methodology
To assess the ethical issues raised when World Vision's
programs are subjected to the TARES test, nine one-hour "special
reports" were examined. These were: Crisis in the Horn of Africa
(1981), Africa: Continent in Crisis (1984), Cry of a Continent
(1985), Ethiopia: The Nightmare Continues (1985), The Silent Tragedy
(1987), Love That Rescues (1993), Come Love the Children (1994), Sing
Out for the Children (1997), and Let Your Light Shine (1999). A
recent program on AIDS in Africa was not studied. Videotapes
containing these one-hour fundraising specials obtained from World
Vision were analyzed to identify the persuasive messages and images
of the programs, and how each element contributed to building toward
an appeal for funds. Each video was watched multiple times and,
because full transcriptions of the videos were not available,
extensive notes were taken and verbatim quotes documented. Using
these notes, then, the researchers analyzed the programs using the
TARES test as a rubric of expectations and then judged whether the
World Vision programs met the mark for each of the questions proposed
in the TARES test.
Results
The World Vision television programs utilized one-hour
"special reports" airing multiple times on local commercial and cable
television stations. The organization purchased half hour and
one-hour length air time on commercial television stations because it
was a religious organization and exempt from then-existing Federal
Communication Commission mandates limiting the number of minutes of
commercials broadcast each hour (Waters, 1998). Each of the World
Vision programs aired for one or two years, with the frequency and
longevity of the program dictated by the continued historical
accuracy of the content, and its success in generating funds
(Lonsdale, 2003). Television is an emotional, visual medium, and
World Vision uses this affective dimension in framing its requests
for funds. The two large blocks of time—the central appeals—take
place in a simulated news or telethon studio, and at the scene of the
actual need in a developing country. A host—usually celebrities such
as Mary Ann Mobley, Gary Collins, Alex Trebek, Carol Lawrence, or
Kathy Lee Gifford—introduced the content of the program. The field
images often show desperately hungry children and adults sitting
lethargically in emergency feeding shelters, scrambling for scarce
food allotments, or entering triage tents set up by nurses and
doctors. Eerie, sad music often punctuates the mood. Most often the
interpretation of what is happening at that venue is provided by
either a celebrity host, or by a World Vision-employed field worker
like a doctor or nurse. Professional health or agricultural workers
employed by the government, a church group or World Vision are
occasionally filmed as they comment on the health or food needs of
children they are attempting to help in a triage situation.
Occasionally a person in need is interviewed and the translation is
provided by an off-screen translator. The celebrity host is a
substitute for the viewer and often shares the revulsion and passion
"everyman" would experience if they were in the same situation. It is
voyeuristic TV, with the host attempting to convince the viewer back
home that the conditions warrant immediate response in the form of a
donation to help alleviate the situation the celebrity is immersed in.
The programs from the 1980s focused on the terrible famines in
Africa, with their appeals for funding for emergency relief and
community improvement programs, while the 1990s programs focused on
longer-term community development giving through a well-known program
called Child Sponsorship.
TARES Dimensions: Truthfulness
Are the events and claims of these programs true? Interviews
with affected peoples and the professional commentary of technical
experts--relief workers, government officials and medical
workers--provide the donor with a strong picture of the need. There's
no denying this human suffering is true. The camera, as far as its
limited vision extends, does not lie. United Nations factoids and
other testimonials from government officials ("38,000 children will
die today from preventable diseases . . . ") scroll across the screen
to present an objective truth about the situation. External reports
from newspapers, television news and other international aid
organizations can verify the fact that poverty or starvation may
exist in any of the areas depicted in the World Vision fundraising specials.
Still, World Vision's choice of where to train its cameras can
be misleading. Knowing that people remember anecdotes and examples
more than statistics and rational arguments (see Zillmannnn 2002, for
instance), producers focus on the worst case scenario, the poorest of
the poor in any given situation. Viewers are left with the
impression that what they are seeing is indicative of a larger
problem, when it may only be a depiction of an isolated
event. Nonetheless, in all the programs the researchers studied,
celebrity hosts and narrators provided facts and figures about the
number of people affected in any given area. Most of the time those
facts are attributed to United Nations entities or the host
government, rather than simply creations of World Vision's marketing
staff. The camera may not lie about the extent of need in an
isolated situation, while the narrative provided by experts and World
Vision celebrities claims the problems are widespread and urgent
action is needed to stop the suffering.
A second claim is that if donors provide immediate financial
assistance--a one-time donation for emergency relief, ongoing
sponsorship of a child (called Child Sponsorship) or village
(LifeSharing Partners)--the situation can be alleviated. That's quite
a stretch for the rational mind to make. Indeed, the donor may be
watching the television programs months, even years, after the
tragedy depicted on the screen. By that time, any crisis shown has
been alleviated or the people depicted are dead. This type of
over-exaggeration permeates the programs.
A third claim is that donors will make an immediate difference
in the lives of people like those (ital. added) depicted on the
screen. To avoid the appearance of showing total hopelessness, the
stark images are countered with footage of children receiving
assistance, and at times viewers see lush fields of grain or corn, or
a happy child in a classroom, thanks—donors are told—to their
generosity. The visual evidence of successful project implementation
generates a sense that what viewers are seeing is a truthful
rendition coming from a trustworthy agency. Another element of
persuasion used in some of the specials is testimonials from
satisfied donors or child sponsors who have visited with their child
in the field, received progress reports and letters from the child,
and who have found the experience to be personally rewarding to their
families. To sponsor Grace Nelson, the feeling that comes from giving
and making a difference is heartfelt, so much that she wishes to
share it with other women. She states, "my prayer is that I can just
share the ache in my heart . . . and that women's' hearts will be
touched as mine has. And that together holding hands, that we can
make a difference" (Cry of a Continent).
Critics have asked if the product offered to donors is being
truthfully depicted (Jeffries, 2002; Bentham, 1993). In reality,
funds given by child sponsors are pooled together to fund ongoing
development programs—clean water, housing, education, nutritional
training, improved agricultural opportunities and small business
loans—that indirectly benefit all the children in a community where
the sponsored child lives. To ensure the tenuous bond between the
donor and the child they sponsor, a social worker paid by World
Vision ensures that all the children receive adequate healthcare and
access to education. A World Vision worker also provides a written
update on the sponsored child's health and educational progress to
the donor. Sponsors are encouraged to write to "their children" and
to send specified gifts. Sponsors may also visit their sponsored
child if arranged in advance with World Vision. In its programs,
World Vision does tell potential donors that their funds are
co-mingled with those of other donors. In Love that Rescues, co-host
Sara Purcell, in a phone center lined with photos of children
awaiting sponsors, notes: "Your gift will be joined with those of
others to assist your child through their own family and community
with things like health training, clean water supplies and new ways
to farm and earn a living." Kathy Lee Gifford explains:
Your gifts are combined with the gifts of other sponsors to provide
children with safe water, schools, clothing, medical care, training
to grow better crops and the support of loving Christian counselors
who also help grow their spirits, their hearts. These are the types
of things that bring about real lasting change in the life of a
child. It's not a temporary band-aid and it's not a quick fix. And
that's why World Vision is so effective and so critically important
(Let Your Light Shine).
In the case of the honesty of the appeals, the words accurately tell
donors how their funds are being used. The imagery of the picture
folders and the recitation of benefits to sponsors (written reports,
letters, visitations) is likely to overwhelm those words, thus
reinforcing the perception of adoption in the mind of the donor, and
an expectation that the funding provided each month goes directly to the child.
Using the TARES measure of truthfulness, then, the researchers found
the presentations truthful in what they presented, while leaving
impressions that critics say foster misperception about the extent of
the need and the details of the product offered to donors as a means
to alleviate suffering.
Authenticity
The dimension of authenticity relates to virtue ethics (Baker
and Martinson, p. 162). Patterson & Wilkins (2005) link authenticity
with both motive and sincerity. What motivates people to advocate for
these World Vision efforts to help others? Are the people making
these appeals sincere in their statements about the need and the
probable solutions?
While one cannot truly understand the motivations of another,
the hosts of the World Vision specials express their support for the
organization and their own involvement in providing funding to
it. The organization originally used celebrity hosts on the
assumption they would provide "tune-in value" (Reid, R., January 7,
1994) and each of the World Vision programs is hosted by at least one
celebrity. Each host was required to visit World Vision projects
overseas and have therefore seen the agency's relief and development
work firsthand. Mary Ann Mobley echoes this sentiment In
Africa: Continent in Crisis. She speaks from a simulated newsroom
set and reflects with her husband, Gary Collins, about their
experiences with World Vision. "I can't tell you how good it made me
feel to think that there is something I might be doing to help," she
says. Gospel artist Sandi Patty is shown in an African village
watching her sponsored child play soccer with a soccer ball she
brought with her from the U.S. She tells viewers her involvement
with World Vision has greatly blessed not only her sponsored child,
but herself (Sing Out for the Children). Alex Trebek stands amidst
the crumbling walls of a mud hut in a favella in Brazil, showing how
the rains have devastated the house. He then interviews a
Presbyterian minister who tells viewers about the living conditions
in this area as the camera shows scenes of dirty children, open
sewers and makeshift housing. The scene then shifts to a World
Vision childcare center and the minister talks of the nutritious
meals and training in God's word the 150 happy children receive. The
camera has now shifted to the classroom where the children smilingly
write on pieces of paper as their teacher lectures. Trebek, himself a
sponsor, entreats viewers to donate funds so more child care centers
can be opened to meet the needs of even more children.
While it may be tempting to point out that actors are paid to
act, the sincerity of the celebrities—most of whom work for free or
minimum wage for World Vision (Lonsdale, 2003)—is difficult to
deny. Certainly by their participation in these programs they are
indicating a willingness to be publicly identified with the
persuasive messages and to risk their reputations on the ethicality
of the appeals.
Another issue of sincerity concerns the credibility of the
organization and its finances. In Ethiopia: The Nightmare Continues,
World Vision president Ted W. Engstrom tells host Gary Collilns: "It
is very important for every donor to know how their funds are being
spent. We are happy, glad, eager to send out a financial
report. With the financial report is a report of activities—all that
is happening because of their giving." In Let Your Light Shine, a
woman named Kim roams through a telephone center with eager staff
answering phones and signing up child sponsors. As she encourages
people to call the center with their gifts and pledges, she notes:
"World Vision is a charter member of the Evangelical Council for
Financial Accountability, so you can be reassured that your donations
will be used wisely and efficiently. Thank you for joining the
family of one million World vision sponsors who are changing
children's lives." As a part of this analysis, the researchers failed
to find evidence in a newspaper and magazine search of the past 30
years of any serious allegations of fraud or mismanagement lodged
against World Vision. That watchdog agencies like the National
Charities Information Bureau and Charity Navigator rate the
organization as efficient in its use of donor funds, also attests to
the organization's trustworthiness. As such, it appears to pass
Aristotle's "good person" test.
Respect
The question of respect presents an interesting ethical
discussion regarding the balance of emotion and rationality. Several
troubling elements emerge in an analysis of the World Vision
programs. The plethora of images and words in the World Vision
specials show a keen appreciation by the producers that people will
respond to appeals based on guilt, pity, urgency and a belief that
they are contributing to a movement bigger than themselves.
Normally stoic newsman Edwin Newman evokes an appeal to guilt
as he walks through the Sahel desert and tells views in Cry of a
Continent, "Today, we in the western world have the resources, the
know-how and the ability to help people save the lives of millions of
children like these. The question is what will we do with this cry
of a continent?" Filmed sequences of sick and dying children,
coupled with wide-angle shots of dusty refugee camps or denuded
agricultural hillsides, are meant to evoke an emotional response of
sympathy or pity. In Crisis in the Horn of Africa, celebrity Carol
Lawrence is shown in a refugee camp talking with a mother who had to
decide which of her two children to continue to breast feed, as she
did not have enough milk to feed both. Lawrence turns to the camera
and says, "I . . . thank God that I never had to face the agonizing
choice Noria did. But right now you have a choice to make, too. To
help or to turn aside. To say yes or no. Make the right
choice. Please call now." In Ethiopia: The Nightmare
Continues, donor Ginny Wiedman, tells viewers, "As a Christian, it's
my responsibility to care for every person who is hurting. Whoever
they are. Wherever they are." In Cry of a Continent, the narrator
entreats viewers with this message: "Today, we in the western world
have the resources, the know-how and the ability to help people save
the lives of millions of children like these. The question is what
will we do with this cry of a continent? It used to be a distant
cry. No longer. It has reached our neighborhoods, our homes, our
living rooms. Let's hope it reaches our hearts."
A disrespect of the rational capacity of potential donors is
also seen in appeals to pity or sympathy for the "less fortunate"
depicted in the programs. Painter Thomas Kinkaide, after visiting a
dump in Guatemala, tells studio host Kathy Lee Gifford about the
surprise he encountered at the living conditions of children who work
in the dump, walking barefoot through the trash to salvage scraps to
recycle, or even eat. "You don't expect to see something this bad,"
he tells her, [they're] collecting trash for pennies a day." Gifford
tells viewers a few seconds later, "It's not right that children
should live like this, is it? All alone with no one to hear their
cries. Well, we can help wipe away their tears with the promise that
we care and that God loves them" (Let Your Light Shine). In Crisis
in the Horn of Africa, Carol Lawrence tell viewers multiple times
that the people are in desperate need, and that claim is verified as
the camera shows the flies on the faces of starving children, their
eyes dulled and lethargic from the ravages of kwashiorkor. The
viewer, she implies, holds the key to whether these horrific scenes
continue or not. It is up to the viewer to "make that call."
World Vision's strong visual message was reinforced by appeals
to respond to an urgent need—a life and death situation—that only the
viewer could alleviate. The message was unequivocal: do something
now or you may be responsible for the death of the people you see on
your television set. Urgent messages included heartfelt pleas such
as, "don't wait. Every minute counts. Make that call" (Ethiopia:
The Nightmare Continues) and, "if we act now, thousands of lives can
be saved" (Continent in Crisis). World Vision's television specials
emphasize a personal, one-to-one approach in which the hosts address
viewers directly. These statements put the lives of desperate people
into the hands of the viewer who is told she not only has the
capability, but the responsibility to respond.
Indeed, the aspect of urgency is nonstop in the programs,
regardless of location or scene.
For the purpose of this study, anytime a viewer was asked to "call"
or "pick up the phone" was counted as a solicitation. In general,
each of the programs contained at least 15 appeals to donate. The
highest number of "asks" occurred during Ethiopia: The Nightmare
Continues. Thirty solicitations--one every two minutes--were
recorded. This barrage of requests is emotional manipulation, a
strong-arm tactic to ensure that before the viewer clicks to another
channel they make that call—immediately. The reason for the call,
they're told, is that lives hang in the balance. No pressure
there! The implication: if you switch channels now you're a
heartless contributor to the misery you're seeing on the television set.
While rational discourse is considered the most ethical form of
communication, Jaksa and Pritchard argue that "rational argument is
not the only morally acceptable form of persuasion" (1994, p. 77).
Emotion appeals may be acceptable as long as the communicator avoids
using totally irrational, guilt or fear-based tactics that undercut
rational choice. The difficulty, of course, is that what may be an
urgent and legitimate emotional message to a person filled with
passion about an injustice may seem a hollow, manipulative ploy to others.
Given the stated purpose of the organization, to serve the
needy in the name of Christ, one would expect religious appeals to
permeate the programming. Is this done with respect for the
audience? While World Vision was birthed out of the passion of one
evangelical Protestant minister, its appeal is to a generalized
Christian set of values than to a particular denominational or
theology. Executive Vice President Bill Kliewer tells viewers, "at
the heart of our work is to really do what Jesus really did. When
Jesus was here on earth, he really reached out to those who were
poor, who were hungry, who had no hope" (Cry of a Continent). InLet
Your Light Shine, Kathy Lee Gifford similarly states, "God has given
us clear eyes to see the problems and opened ears to hear the cries
of the children." In analyzing the majority of the references to
religious motivations to give, the researchers found several
instances where the appeals seem to infer to viewers, "if you're
really a Christian, you'll do something," but in general the appeals
are general enough not to manipulate believers or offend non-believers.
Finally, potential donors are promised that by giving, they
will gain satisfaction because they will be joining an international
movement much bigger than themselves. This appeal couples a
psychological appeal to belonging with an egotistical appeal to give
because it will make the viewer feel food, philanthropic and
compassionate. In fact, more focus is on the "feel good" factor in
these programs than on the responsibility of the Christian to help
others without expecting earthly recognition or reward. Hosts often
asked donors to give and thereby join a select group of compassionate
Americans. In Ethiopia: The Nightmare Continues, Collins states,
"When you call…you'll join thousands of other people committed to
saving lives." Carol Lawrence says, "Together we're going to have
the thrill of bringing hope to those who've almost given up hoping"
(Crisis in the Horn of Africa). Donor Grace Nelson provides a
personal testimonial in Cry of a Continent: "My prayer is that . . .
together holding hands, that we can make a difference. It is a whole
continent with a crisis, but we can make a difference." Sargeant
(1999) notes that donors are more likely to respond favorably to
messages that make them feel good about their donations and the cause
to which they are donating. World Vision uses messages declaring that
gifts make an immediate impact on the well-being of recipients, and
it also strokes people's ego by noting that long-term development
funds help people help themselves, so poverty and tragedy are less
likely to recur. In Ethiopia: The Nightmare Continues, Gary Collins
asks viewers to, "become an Ethiopian life sharing partner. Have the
satisfaction knowing you're doing something meaningful, something
tangible to help save a child's life. There's no better feeling than
knowing that a child is alive because you cared. Please go to your
phone and call now." Michael Gross tells viewers that those donating
money will "feel twice as blessed."
Do these emotional tactics treat donors as less than rational? The
emotional quotient is high, and it is tempting to denounce the
organization for its over-wrought emotional wordage and visual
imageries. But the counter-argument is that by making a pledge and
receiving picture folder of a sponsored child, the donor enters into
a relationship that quickly moves from the emotional to the rational
(Lonsdale, 2003). Providing donors with updates on how their funds
are being used, and in allowing the possibility for correspondence
with sponsored children, the agency reasons that it provides a total
package of communication with the donor that is both emotional (and
isn't life and death an emotional issue, anyway? They argue) and rational.
Finally, the issue of the level of respect shown to those
depicted as needy should be examined. One might argue that the camera
is merely recording a reality, not creating or exploiting it. But on
several levels, the communication shows disrespect for those people
even if their life circumstances has previously stripped them of
their dignity as humans. While World Vision may argue its job is to
show truth and then be a conduit for donors who want to alleviate the
poverty, critics contend that raising people to economic and
emotional health can be accomplished without the emotional and
exploitative imagery. One message that permeates World Vision's
presentations and belies a lack of respect for those shown on the
screen is the inference that their lives can be changed without much
of a sacrifice on the part of the donor. In essence, these victims
are only worth pennies a day. In Let Your Light Shine, Kathy Lee
Gifford tells donors: "Become a World Vision child sponsor. It takes
so little and the rewards are so great." Later, she pleads, "Please,
it's only $22 a month." Donors are also told it is easy and painless
to save the life of a child. In-studio hosts and satisfied donor
testimonials stress that it's not the size of the gift that brings
satisfaction, but rather the act of giving alone will make one feel
good. In Crisis in the Horn of Africa, Carol Lawrence states,
"whatever the amount, the satisfaction is beyond words. It's the
fulfillment that comes with giving. Don't miss out on it. Go to
your phone right now."
Past research indicates that charities face a slippery slope
of depicting individuals as needy, while not dwelling in a
heavy-handed nature of the handicap as that tends to discourage
donations. World Vision's programming illustrates this dilemma. The
earlier World Vision programs, most focused on famine in Africa,
depict the starkness of the dependency of the victims. Certainly, as
Seargent (1999) notes, the strength of the stimuli is important in
evoking donor response and the stark images of dying children too
lethargic to swat flies off their faces is a shocking image
commanding the attention of the donor. Stark images are interspersed
with assurance that donations will ease the poverty, that all is not
hopeless, and donors can make a difference. Against the overwhelming
odds of worldwide poverty, co-host Twila Paris in Sing for the
Children tells viewers that they can't help the whole world, but they
can help one child at a time, "and it is so simple," she says,
exhorting viewers to go to their phones and become child sponsors.
Equity
Several issues emerge when considering if the equity test. Do these
ads ensure that all the recipients understand the complexity of the
causes for the tragedy or poverty shown on their television sets? If
the need is real, are the potential responses accurately depicted?
And are donors able to verify for themselves that the solutions World
Vision puts forth are efficient and necessary?
The efforts of local governments to contribute to helping
their own people are rarely depicted. The structural and
institutional causes of poverty are not addressed in these programs.
These two omissions are not easily verifiable by the audience, thus
putting World Vision's message and the rational understanding of the
audience in an inequitable position of knowledge. That could hurt
rational choice, as the viewers are not told causes and solutions
other than poverty and famine, with sponsorship as the solution.
Another inequity rests in the fact that none of the programs
portrayed the needy—or their governments' ideologies or policies--as
being at fault for their condition. Those in need were depicted as
being innocent, hopeless victims of larger societal problems such as
civil war, political upheaval, famine, drought, HIV/AIDS, and
poverty. Fickle Mother Nature or civil strife are responsible,
donors are told, although rarely would the organization put the blame
on corrupt governments or warring factions for fear of being expelled
from the country or targeted for revenge (Waters, 1998). DeWaal
(1997) is particularly critical of aid agencies' fundraising tactics
that avoid a complete and honest depiction of the reasons for the
tragedy. The aid agencies like World Vision (Lonsdale, 2003) have
argued that they work inside countries like Ethiopia with the
blessing of the government. To accuse that government of
malfeasance, civil rights violations or perpetuating atrocities on
its own people would be to risk expulsion and the people in greatest
need would suffer. Which is more ethical, they argue: to tell the
entire truth in all its shades of meaning, or to present a one-sided
view of truth that allows the organization to remain at its relief
work and restore human life and dignity in the process? This is an
ethical decision—a decision that pits the desire to maximize donor
funds to save lives with an ethical expectation of critics that the
organization should provide all the facts, in their complexity, about
the causes of the problem. World Vision takes the short-term approach
that lives need to be saved and lives will be lost if the agency is
kicked out of the country by an angry government. It's critics argue
the sacrifice of a few lives may be necessary in order to present
information that will eventually lead to a government change, or a
structural change in how world resources are allocated. Critics
(especially Jeffries, 2002) say World Vision's presentation of facts
and solutions are incomplete, and only exacerbate ethnocentrism,
stereotypes about their inability of the poor to help themselves, and
of the real causes of oppression in our world. Thus the appearance
of political neutrality is obtained by providing superficial reasons
for the tragedy, with Mother Nature, who doesn't respond to the
accusations, being blamed for causing the majority of the suffering.
While these omissions might confuse the simplicity of the
message, and could cause political problems with host governments,
critics like Bentham (1993) and Jeffries (2002) say such omissions
are unethical. Jeffries points out that in addition to a lack of
rains, major causes of the famine in Ethiopia in 1984 and 1985 were a
devastating civil war, disastrous forced resettlement programs and
other poorly executed policies of the Marxist government. In other
situations, the role North Americans might play in causing a
situation of poverty is never mentioned. "The causes of poverty are
de-historicized and the state of poverty is represented as a natural
phenomenon" (Jeffries, 2002, p. 7) He and others point out that
other options do exist, and those are not provided by the World
Vision programs. These may include lifestyle changes by viewers such
as more responsible consumption, lobbying politicians to release
stored food surpluses, and advocating for changes in political and
corporate structures that often provide unfair advantage to
developing countries.
Social Responsibility
Critics like Bentham, Jeffries and Wolfe say the World Vision
programs perpetuate stereotypes about inhabitants of the Third
World. The "Us/Them" relationship implied in the exchange between
the donor and the so-called recipient generates a sense of power
among donors. "The child, and the supposed alleviation of poverty,
then, is commodified; the act of sponsorship a practice of consumer
culture: (Jeffries, 2002, p. 16). Jeffries goes on to note: "The
stereotypes perpetuated by World Vision and similar relief agencies
in their discourses of development may be regarded as constituting a
form of violence in the sense that they misrepresent life in project
countries and ignore cultural and historical differences. . ."
Bentham (1993) in particular criticized the televised images of
emaciated children with blank stares. Although the use of these shock
images has lessened, Bentham says any imagery that is focused on the
worst situation in a country leaves an impression with the donor that
this isolated situation is representative of all of Africa. World
Vision thus may downplay some of real causes for the tragedy by
offering simple short-term solutions (such as child sponsorship) to
large-scale crises that cannot be solved without sustained
intervention by governments and the United Nations. Even though today
the direct response television programs of World Vision, Feed the
Children and Christian Children's Fund avoid those stark images of
near-death, some critics (DeWaal, 1997; Moeller, 1999) contend that
even the notion of white Europeans rushing to save starving Africans
perpetuates stereotypes that Africans cannot help themselves.
Furthermore, the barrage of shocking images creates a desensitizing
among potential donors, so getting their attention anew requires even
more shocking images.
The researchers found evidence aplenty of these macro concerns
voiced by critics of the World Vision programs.
Conclusion
This paper explores the question of whether the TARES test can be
used as an analytical tool, using the World Vision "special reports"
as the artifact subject to the analysis. In exploring whether the
test can be extended to use in analyzing the ethicality of mediated
communication, the researchers note mixed results. Arguing for
ethicality is the fact that most of the messages are true—that people
are suffering and the organization provides a means of alleviating
some of that suffering. On the other hand, other means to alleviate
poverty also exist. World Vision is not the only humanitarian aid
organization, and the solutions it offers are not the only solutions
for ending human suffering. Further, the appeals to non-rational
motivations, and imagery and words that seem to undercut significant
choice are evident. Macro concerns--like the potential for these
programs to perpetuate stereotypes about Third World citizens being
lazy, unmotivated and unable to take care of themselves, thus
requiring "rescue" by the west—can certainly be seen in the appeals.
Thus, depending on one's viewpoint and research methodology, one can
find for or against the ethicality of the World Vision programs.
Yet the issue is more complicated. The researchers found they could
into adequately answer some of the questions contained in test
without a dialogue with the program's creators. An analysis of the
artifacts alone creates a skewed viewpoint of the programs. Thus, the
analysis needs to also consider these factors. World Vision
executives claim they are telling the truth donors need to know in
order to be motivated to give. The needs are real; the human
suffering is depicted on the screen. Further, the solutions offered
to potential donors get results and make the donor feel a strong
sense of satisfaction. In meetings with World Vision executives the
past decade, and as an employee of the organization in the 1980s, the
lead researcher has posed a number of these ethical issues. The
response from the organization was that when it has attempted to
present programming without stark images or emotional appeals,
donations dropped. It is this very emotional nature of the programs
that maximize donations and thus increase the number of people
assisted. From the World Vision perspective, there is an ethical
mandate to spend existing donor dollars carefully. Since some
funding for the TV specials comes from existing donations, the agency
says it is imperative to maximize income from the programs in order
to fulfill their mandate to efficiently spend existing donor
dollars. Straying from the message that elicits maximum income is a
betrayal of the trust shown in the agency by its existing
donors. Lonsdale (2003) says when the agency tested fundraising
segments extolling the beauty of Ethiopia and its long history, and
focused on smiling children exclusively, the phones stopped ringing
at their customer service centers. When the segments were edited out
and replaced by stark footage showing the need, the phones rang.
Looking at the programs alone would not inform the researcher about
the very internal dialogue the TARES test is supposed to encourage.
In judging the ethicality of the product, dialogue with the creators
of the persuasive message provides a better-rounded understanding of
the total ethical picture. This is just one instance of the weakness
of the TARES test as a strictly analytical tool for
ethicists. Without dialogue between the researcher and the ad's
creators, the complexity of the ethical decisions could not be
uncovered. Thus the value of dialogue is an enhancement of the
pedagogical function of the test, as well as a more balanced
assessment of the artifacts' ethicality.
Among existing critics of World Vision's programming, one researcher
did undertake this dialogue. In his 1993 book, Bentham explored a
number of objections about World Vision's fundraising practices. He
approached the task with skepticism (personal interview, 1995), but
later concluded: "For those who believe that humanitarian agencies
should model themselves on the integrated, market-oriented,
multi-national corporation, World Vision is probably the nearest to
that ideal yet achieved—but a heavy load of religious ideology comes
with the package" (167).
One other observation needs consideration. The major critics of
World Vision's programming are European and Canadian. Media systems
and cultural expectations about emotionalism in advertising
differ. There's a bit of the flim flam marketing culture of the old
snake oil salesman alive in the expectations of American viewers not
present in those from Commonwealth countries. Bentham notes as much
in admitting that "in the USA the general tone of all advertising is
more brash and crude than in Britain" (1993, p. 161) This perhaps
explains in part why the emotional, urgent and manipulative messages
of the World Vision programs seem to find more favor among American
audiences, while the major critics are from less demonstrative
cultures. The fact that the fundraising television programs of World
Vision were a vital part of its meteoric increase in funding the past
three decades should confirm that regardless of the criticism leveled
at it by academics, audiences find the organization a credible avenue
for showing what they consider to be appropriate compassion.
In summary, then, the TARES test is a checklist "to guide the
practitioner in moral reflection" (Baker and Martinson 2002, p. 148).
As an analytical tool for ethicists, the test may be more
problematic. Only through dialogue with the persuader can a
researcher assess the degree of truth, authenticity and audience
respect held by the persuader. Thus the pedagogical function can be
better served, with an accompanying reflection by the practitioner,
if the researcher enters into a dialogue with the practitioner about
how the persuasive message was created, and the ethical discussions
that took place during its creation. Thus while students and
researchers find the test a compelling means of thinking ethically,
to work as an analytical tool the test may need to be combined or
re-formulated. Future researchers and philosophers may consider the
possibility of incorporating the TARES test with those dimensions
offered by Grunig and Hunt (1984) or others to provide a richer means
of analysis.
References
Baker, S and Martinson, D. (2001). The TARES test: Five Principles
for Ethical Persuasion. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 16(2), 148-175.
Bennet, R., & Kottasz, R. (2000). Emergency fund-raising for disaster
relief. Disaster Prevention and
Management, 9, 352-361.
Benthall, J. (1993). Disasters, relief, and the
media. London: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd.
Davies, R. (Producer). (1999). Let your light shine. Pasadena, CA:
Russ Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
De Wall. A. (1997). Famine crimes: Politics and the disaster relief
industry in America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Evans, G. (Producer). (1984). Africa: Continent in
Crisis. Pasadena, CA: Russ Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
Evans, G. (Producer). (1985a). Cry of a Continent. Pasadena,
CA:Russ Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
Evans, G. (Producer). (1985b). Ethiopia: The Nightmare
Continues. Pasadena, CA:Russ Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
Grunig, J.E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Guy, B.S. & Patton, W.E. (1988). The marketing of altruistic
causes: Understanding why people help. The Journal of Services
Marketing, 2, 5-16.
Hamilton, J.R. (1980). An historical study of Bob Pierce and World
Vision's development of the evangelical social action film.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
Jacobson, H.K. (1986). Toward a network: Problems and opportunities
in fund raising research. In R.F. Carbone, An agenda for research
on fund raising (pp. 37-40). College Park, MD: Clearinghouse for
Research on Fund Raising.
Jaksa, J.A. & Pritchard, M.S. (1994). Communication ethics: Methods
of analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jefferess, D. (2002). For sale – peace of mind: (Neo-) colonial
discourse and the commodification of Third World poverty in World
Vision's 'telethons'. Critical Arts Journal, 16, 1-20.
Kelly, K.S. (1995). The fund-raising behavior of U.S. charitable
organizations: An
explanatory study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(2), 111-137.
Layton, D.N. (1987). Philanthropy and Voluntarism: An Annotated
Bibliography. New York: The Foundation Center.
Lonsdale, M. (2003, 8 July). Personal Interview. Federal Way, WA.
Martinson, D.L. (1998). A Question of Distributive and Social
Justice: Public Relations Practitioners and the Marketplace of
Ideas. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 13(3), 141- 151.
McClun, J. (Producer). (1987). The Silent Tragedy. Pasadena, CA: Russ
Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
Moeller, S. (1999). Compassion fatigue: How the media sell disease,
famine and death. New York: Routledge.
Panas, J. (1984). Megagifts: Who gives them, who gets
them. Chicago: Pluribus Press, Inc.
Patterson, P. and Wilkins, L. (2005) Media Ethics: Issues and Cases,
5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Payton, R. (1987a). Philanthropic values. In K.W. Thompson (Ed.),
Philanthropy: Private means, public ends, 4 (pp. 21-46). Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Payton, R. (1987b). Tenets for success. In K.W. Thompson (Ed.),
Philanthropy: Private means, public ends, 4 (pp.169-198). Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Reid, R. (7 January 1994). Personal Interview. Pasadena, CA.
Russ Reid Productions (1997). Sing Out for the Children. Pasadena,
CA: Russ Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charitable giving: Towards a model of donor
behaviour. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 215-238.
Stafford, T. (2005, February 24). The Colossus of Care. Christianity
Today. retrieved March 15, 2005 at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/003/18.50.html.
Stitt, W.G. (Producer). (1981). Crisis in the Horn of
Africa. Pasadena, CA: Russ Reid Productions for World Vision United States.
Waters, K. (1998). How World Vision Rose from Obscurity to
Prominence: Television Fundraising, 1972-1982. American Journalism
15(4), 69-74.
Willmer, W.K., Schmidt, J.D., & Smith, M. (1989). The Prospering Parachurch:
Enlarging the Boundaries of God's Kingdom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
World Vision (2002). Who we are. Retrieved June 4, 2003 from
http://www.worldvision.org
Zillmannn, D. (2002). Exemplification Theory of Media Influence. In
Bryant, J. & Zillmannn, D. (Eds.) Media Effects: Advances in Theory
and Research, 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
The TARES Test as an Ethical Analysis Tool:
Assessing the Ethicality of Direct Response Television Programs
Submitted by:
Ken Waters, Ph.D.
Professor of Journalism
Pepperdine University
And
Jamie Melton, M.A.
Graduate Student
Pepperdine University
Submitted to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication's
Mass Media Ethics Division
April 2006
Address correspondence to:
Ken Waters
Pepperdine University
Communication Division
Malibu, CA 90263
(310) 506-4245
[log in to unmask]
Abstract:
The TARES Test as an Ethical Analysis Tool:
Assessing the Ethicality of Direct Response Television Programs
Ken Waters, Ph.D.
Professor of Journalism
Pepperdine University
And
Jamie Melton, M.A.
Graduate Student
Pepperdine University
In recent years, scholars have proposed several "tests" for
determining the ethicality of persuasive mediated messages. Baker &
Martinson (2001) suggest a five-part test called the TARES
test. Eight one-hour special reports prepared by international aid
organization World Vision were studied. The researchers note that
the TARES test can be used to assess the ethicality of persuasive
messages, but dialogue with the messages' creators is necessary to
achieve a useful assessment for pedagogical purposes.
|
