Deemphasizing bad news vs. deemphasizing unfavorable data via distorting graphs and charts: same or different?

This week I’ve been asked the question of, “Is intentionally deemphasizing bad news the same as distorting graphs and charts to deemphasize unfavorable data? Why or why not?” which isn’t exactly something that I would put much thought into, so I had to go to my trusty text book.

Chapter 8 of Bovee and Thill’s Business Communication Essentials: A Skills-Based Approach, is all about delivering negative messages. On page 198, they talk about how you don’t want to overemphasize bad news, but you also don’t want to overly deemphasize bad news.

So using this information to look at the original question asked, I see deemphasizing bad news vs. distorting graphs and charts to deemphasize unfavorable data as very different things.

Data on charts and graphs are supposed to represent facts, and if these are altered in an attempt to downplay how bad things are, then they aren’t displaying the facts in the most clear and concise way possible which could lead to misunderstanding and confusion. If I worked for a company where the higher ups used such tactics, I would feel lied to, like things were being hidden from me and in a company setting that would be very bad for business and, to put it bluntly, who would want to work for an untrustworthy company?

Deemphasizing bad news, responsibly, in a business setting is still stating the facts, possibly in a more positive light. It could also be used to keep moral up and encourage a change wherever possible to make improvements throughout the company.

So, to me, not only are these both very different but they also have different effects in a company setting. One positive and one negative.