At Michael Jackson’s manslaughter trial, lawyers opened with PowerPoint slides showing Jackson’s dead body under the word “Homicide”.
But an important question is this: when is using the Picture Superiority Effect a smart communication tactic, and when does it cross over into manipulation?
Does this image of a dead Michael Jackson really help a jury to make a just and objective decision? Or, instead, does it bias the jury even before it’s had a chance to hear one shred of factual evidence?
In fact, researchers have found that pictures do bias a jury. For instance, one 2006 study at the University of New South Wales found guilty verdicts jumped from 9% to 38% when lawyers showed juries photos of blood-splattered clothing.
That’s a sobering swing in judgment. Did the pictures lead to more accurate jury decisions than the facts alone? Or, did the pictures convict an innocent man?
As communicators, we know the tricks of how to persuade an audience. But at what point are we ethically bound to put the persuasion tactics aside and let the audience decide based on the facts alone? This PowerPoint slide of Michael Jackson is, in my opinion, a disgraceful abuse of the Picture Superiority Effect. What do you think?
About the author: Bruce Gabrielle is author of Speaking PowerPoint: the New Language of Business, showing a 12-step method for creating clearer and more persuasive PowerPoint slides for boardroom presentations. Subscribe to this blog or join my LinkedIn group to get new posts sent to your inbox.