Must a communicator be a manipulator?

 “It’s just a PR stunt.”

We’ve all heard this expression before. Sometimes it means that a company is trying to manipulate us in order to improve its image and ultimately make more money. Furthermore, we often associate communication with manipulation, because manipulators are often skilled communicators—they use their words precisely to deceive us.
Yet, we are also told that communication is essential in a couple or group in order to understand one another. Is this a contradiction? Does effective communication necessarily involve manipulation? If communication is truly crucial in human relationships, are we doomed to manipulate when we speak?

This raises the central issue: Must a communicator be a manipulator?

---

1. What does it mean to be a communicator and a manipulator?

Communicator: an entity (organization or individual) that communicates. Communication is the ability to exchange information using language or code.¹
Manipulator: an entity (organization or individual) that manipulates. To manipulate is to subtly lead someone toward a specific behavior or action, to maneuver them.²

---

I. Problem: A communicator can manipulate (and that’s not cool).

A communicator can indeed manipulate. For instance, a press officer—a communications professional—may relay information to journalists without verifying its truth, as long as they believe in it and succeed in convincing the journalist. In this case, the press officer has manipulated the journalist. A manipulator cares only about achieving their deceptive goal—here, convincing—regardless of whether the information is true, false, or even fabricated.

This kind of scenario is not uncommon in the communication world (e.g., greenwashing or social washing), and it isn’t surprising, because a communicator, by definition, merely transmits information via language or code.
So, in theory, communication should be morally neutral. But what prevents a manipulator from subtly leading someone toward a desired behavior while exchanging information? Wouldn't that simply make them a communicator who uses manipulation?

Even more alarming is the rise of social media since the 2000s, with platforms like Facebook and more recently AI tools like ChatGPT (2022). This explosion, combined with fake news and dubious real-world practices, opens the door even wider for manipulation through distorted or false information by anyone or any organization involved in communication.

---

II. Pragmatic Solution: Require the communicator to provide evidence or demonstration.

Although communication is sometimes regulated by press freedom principles (e.g., First Amendment in the U.S.) and occasionally by ethical charters in companies…

Unlike fields like medicine (Declaration of Geneva, World Medical Association) or international trade (CISG), communication is not governed by solid global conventions. Even the ethical codes in communication are often vague, leaving room for individual interpretation and biased justification.

To address this ambiguity, we propose a principle: in any written or spoken communication from someone in the communication field to relevant stakeholders—

There must be a justification or proof attached to the information.

If a statement lacks demonstration or evidence, it should be rejected.

Examples of possible evidence:

• Medical: "Here are 3 certified documents of employees diagnosed with burnout. We require internal crisis management support."

• Legal: "The Dahir of XY explicitly guarantees our right to organize this event."

• Financial: "We increased our profits from 2 to 3 million MAD this year."

• Economic: "Agriculture represents the largest share of Morocco’s GDP—this is a major opportunity!"

• Political: "Macron became president of France in 2022."

• Intangible: "We have 3 Microsoft Office software licenses."

• Historical: "Tariq Ibn Ziyad conquered Andalusia in 711."

• Scientific: "The Earth revolves around the Sun."

Examples of demonstrations:

• Formal logic (e.g., based on Aristotle’s Organon)

• Valid reasoning: “All communicators do marketing. Rachid does marketing. But that doesn’t necessarily make him a communicator.” (✅ Valid reasoning)

Invalid forms to avoid:

• Fallacies: “All elephants are mammals, therefore all mammals are elephants!”

• Pseudoscience: “According to alchemy, we must collaborate to generate new harmony!”

Presentation formats:

• Asterisks (*), hyperlinks, or footnotes attached to the claim being justified.

Goals of this idea:

• Discourage linguistic deception.

• Protect the public from misinformation.

• Ensure reliability in professional communication.

---

Simulation of Two Common Scenarios:

Case 1: Advertising Poster

"If all Moroccans buy Shampeyyy, that means it’s the best shampoo!"

Analysis:

• No evidence:
  Where is the verifiable data proving that every registered Moroccan citizen has bought this product?

• No scientific justification:
  If the claim is that it’s “the best shampoo,” scientific evidence should support this (e.g., unique natural properties proven effective and unmatched by competitors).

---

Case 2: Crisis Communication

32 people file complaints against Cleanium’s product Detergix, claiming false advertising. The press officer, instead of explaining how to use the product properly, attacks the complainants’ knowledge, saying they lack chemical expertise and don’t understand how the product works.

Analysis:

• Fallacy: Ad hominem.
  Rather than defending the product's features, the communicator targets the complainants’ intelligence.

---

III. Philosophical Perspective: The communicator chooses truth, the manipulator is a slave to his desire.

What distinguishes a communicator from a manipulative communicator is intention.
A communicator shares information; a manipulative communicator only shares information to covertly lead someone to a desired behavior.
Thus, a communicator becomes a manipulator the moment their intention is to lead someone insidiously.

If I can choose whether or not to act with this intention, that implies I have free will—autonomy free from external influence.

So, what fundamentally separates them is the freedom to choose between communicating or manipulating. The key point is:

The communicator chooses truth. The manipulator is enslaved by the need to manipulate.

Why does the communicator choose truth?

By definition:

• To communicate is to exchange information via language or code.

• Information means to inform someone.

• To inform is to make something known.

• Knowledge is justified true belief.

• The truth can be of two kinds:

  • Correspondence truth: when a statement matches reality.⁶

  • Coherence truth: when a statement does not contradict other established truths.⁷

Therefore, a communicator, by choosing to communicate, is choosing to exchange only truths.

Why is the manipulative communicator a slave to the need to manipulate?

They don’t care if what they say is true. What matters is that their strategy works.
Worse, even if they could choose not to manipulate, they choose to remain submissive to that need—almost like a voluntary addiction.

This illustrates perfectly :

 

Choosing truth is better than needing to manipulate.

Choosing to share only truthful information stems from the will to uphold this value, even when the truth is inconvenient or contrary to our goals.

Moreover, truth itself is the supreme value.

Why not love, morality, or health?
Because we need truth to validate whether love, morality, or health are real.

Knowledge = justified true belief.
Thus, truth enables us to affirm that these values are real.

Example:
If I say, “I felt a deep affection for this woman,” the statement is true because it corresponds to my real experience, and thus, the proposition is valid through the correspondence theory of truth.

---

As we’ve seen, the manipulative communicator voluntarily submits to the need to manipulate. Even worse, manipulation is never morally acceptable when it attacks honor.
By “honor,” we mean the principles by which one respects oneself and others.
Respect for oneself = valuing one’s integrity;
Respect for others = valuing the integrity of the other.

Thus, covertly leading someone toward a behavior is dishonorable:

• Toward oneself: Because it involves deliberately deceiving another instead of acting openly.

• Toward others: Because it uses them as means, not as ends in themselves.

It is more honorable to outwit an army in battle through strategy
than to play a false role in peacetime to manipulate an enemy.

 .to adopt a certain behavior. In that case, I might as well trap him openly rather than hide behind something to manipulate him. (It is better to choose to ambush an army during a battle for tactical reasons than to play a false winger with your enemy just to win. In the first case, you trap the army through a calculated tactic. But in the second, you are playing a false role: you are willingly ignoring your own identity in order to covertly manipulate your enemy.)

– for others, because manipulating them means not treating them as autonomous beings capable of making decisions with full awareness. When I manipulate someone, I strip them of their dignity and freedom by not giving them the opportunity to decide while being fully informed. By hiding my true intentions, I deny them the ability to agree or disagree with the action I am proposing.

This is why manipulation is dishonorable and why a communicator must make the deliberate choice to seek truth, because truth alone allows for the preservation of mutual dignity and rational dialogue.

In conclusion: Manipulation, whether in its subtle forms or in its most direct approaches, has a significant place in any communication strategy, but it is important to acknowledge that it should never be the core of one's actions. True communication is rooted in truth and authenticity. If one communicates solely to influence or manipulate, they risk undermining the very essence of their own dignity, the dignity of others, and the credibility of their message. The choice between manipulation and honest communication is not just one of methods or tactics, but of ethical responsibility. By choosing honesty and transparency, one can engage in communication that elevates mutual understanding and respect. Manipulation, on the other hand, only leads to deception, division, and a loss of trust.