Exploitation or Accurate Representation?

The nonprofit world is full of wonderful people doing wonderful things.  The nonprofit world in the US allows for needs to be met that cannot/are not met in the private business world (the market) or in the services provided by government agencies.  I work for a nonprofit organization and also serve on the board of directors for another.  And I fully believe in the causes these organizations work for.

But I often wonder to myself about the way that we talk about the needs that we are meeting.  Organizations and people working in organizations have their “go to” stories of success and trauma that they use to talk about the work they are doing.  To be honest, I have them, from my work with immigrants and refugees as well as my work with orphans in African and Russia.  They are gut-wrenching, heart-breaking, and mind-numbing.  Suffering, poverty, pain, isolation…people really are experiencing these.  I have seen it.  And I have told others about it.

What I am wondering is this: what is our moral obligation when we tell these stories?  Are we free to tell these stories how we want, when we want?  What are the limits on telling such stories?  Organization use stories in order to raise financial support, to communicate about the work they do, to show how they are different than other organizations who do similar work.  But is it all fair game in the nonprofit world?  What are inappropriate ways to use stories and images?  How does an organization accurately present their work without overstating the case, without manipulation, and without taking advantage of people?

On this idea of taking advantage of people…I was recently reading material about how nonprofit organizations can effectively raise money.  Not a bad thing.   All nonprofits must do it to fulfill their mission.  And there are people out there who want to give to such work.  In the material I was reading, the author stated that people are more likely to give when they hear an emotional and compelling story.  A study cited actually showed that people respond more to one simple, moving story that than they do statistics.  Perhaps this is because we most identify and connect with narrative as opposed to numbers.  Perhaps this is because we respond to the emotional more than to the cognitive (numbers).  But is it possible to use the results of this study to manipulate people into giving?  Or is their giving simply an expression of their own free will to give their money to whomever they wish, whether they are giving out of the emotion of a moment or something else?  And, to take it perhaps a step further, is it possible that the showing of images and telling of stories actually exploits those who suffer?  Even if showing pictures and tellings stories is “for a good cause”?

What do you think?