When Grant asked a week ago if I would write a post about the pros and cons of legal ghost blogging the prospect seemed a lot simpler than it does today. With heated discussions about the ethics of ghost blogging currently taking place on other blogs right now, the topic now seems heavy with significance. In actuality the ethics of ghost blogging has always been heavy with significance, and always will be; this is because “the ethics of ghost blogging” is not just about ghost blogging—and not just about blogging—but about ethics in general. It is also about the wider issue of the responsibility each and every one of us—blogger or no, lawyer or no—has to the people with whom we interact.
The accusation I seem to see flung most frequently is that hiring a ghostwriter is a lie or deception. This seems like a reasonable conclusion, after all, the deception is right there in the title. If you’re giving credit it’s called “guest”, not “ghost”. But I see newsletters, research, website content, and biographical information, even legal documents themselves passed off to associates, paralegals, secretaries, and writers every day— uncredited. Why are these all “ethical” but not blog content? It is because blogs are assumed to be something different: op-ed pieces, legal advice (in spite of all the disclaimers), or personal brilliance. But what if a blog isn’t any of these things? What if it’s just informative? What if a blog is simply the easiest way to keep your readers updated?
It seems to me that the primary issue to be addressed in the ethics of ghost blogging (or ghost writing) debate is “what is the purpose of your blog?” If you want to use your blog to its greatest potential then you must write the content yourself. There is no way around it. A ghostwriter cannot bond with readers the way you the owner can. She can’t respond to questions, post comments or foster the community that is (in my opinion) the greatest value of blogging.
What a ghostwriter can do is relay information. She can let your readers know about news items, information about your firm, upcoming events, and important issues. She can keep your website updated and your readers informed. This doesn’t mean that attorneys, writers or blog owners are off the hook as far as responsibility is concerned. As a business owner you are responsible for anything and everything that is published under the name of your business; this includes documents, letters, website and blog content, articles, reviews… everything—whether it is written by you, your most trusted research assistant, a ghost writer, or a guest writer.
Is using your blog for this purpose making the most of the blogging medium? No. But it is hardly unethical. Anyone who says that blogs are limited to a single purpose or definition—and that if you don’t fit into that single purpose or definition you’re wrong—is doing the blogging community a disservice.
I don't necessarily see a problem with “ghost blogging” so long as one does not make others think that it is something it is not. If the only purpose is to make firm announcements, etc., then no problem. However, crossing the line from this to content that looks from the outside like one person is writing his or her personal thoughts when this is not the case leads to trouble.
I think that was a great piece. I enjoyed it. The point about the 'purpose' of the blog is a good one. I have been blogging for a month, every day, 800-1000 words. I have one purpose, to entertain. If I get an audible chortle out of a reader, whether I know about it or not, I feel that my work is done. I don't think a ghost writer, or the lesser known Zombie or Werewolf writers, would help me reach my goal.
Very timely post. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
There is a middle of the road choice for bloggers, I call it shadow blogging. A shadow blogger assists with posting by fleshing out a draft post written by the blog owner. It allows the blog content to still be authentic, but saves the blog owner time. And of course, a shadow blogger could also be used to share information as mentioned here.
Great point, T.Marie. I offer this as “blog coaching”, but it's basically what you've described here. And in these cases the blog content is definitely authentic; I'm often moved and impressed by what my coaching clients choose to write about.
Good post. You bring out some very good points. Ethics are like Ed Meese and porn: you know 'em when you see em. And you know it when you don't.
For fun I created a twitter account for my dog. @auggieauggie. Auggie's awesome. He doesn't type, much less read words. As far as I know he doesn't. Is this unethical? Does my ghostblogging for Auggie diminish the integrity quotient for either?
Sarah Palin hired a ghostwriter for her book. I'll leave it at that.
When a CEO blog, clearly identified as a CEO blog, in that CEO's name is written by someone else…someone unidentified, whose role remains a secret…now, THAT…is porn. That's unethical. It's embarassing for all, really.
When Wal-mart hired some folks to drive across the company and pretend to be amazed at the stories they 'saw' in the parking lots of Wal-mart's 'across our great country….' that was unethical. Funny in a 'you thought no one would notice…that idea passed in the board room' kinda way. But…unethical. I think even Ed Meese would shake his head and say 'yes, that meets the definition' of …unethical.
Bottomline, If you're in doubt, ask. If your mother thinks it's unethical, ..don't. If your employees could not explain it without a PR agency, don't. If what you plan to makes you the stuck bird at Thanksgiving…don't. And if you're still in doubt, don't.
Hmmm, I wouldn't call it porn or even compare a blog post written by someone else the same as Sarah Palin's book.
Some CEOs don't feel comfortable writing or aren't good writers. As long as they have the final say in what's posted, I think that's what matters most.
Hi Jenni, great topic!
I've also been blogging on this, and suggest the key is “if you tell, tell the truth”. The difference between an uncredited brief and a blog, is that the blog is signed, as are social media comments. See, this comment is really from me, not an associate with my icon.
I'd be glad to have you or anyone with perspective on this to guest blog at http://www.UsefulArts.us. There are lots of reasons for companies and people to get this right, and its hard to tell just where the line of attribution must be drawn.
Hi Jenni, great topic!
I’ve also been blogging on this, and suggest the key is “if you tell, tell the truth”. The difference between an uncredited brief and a blog, is that the blog is signed, as are social media comments. See, this comment is really from me, not an associate with my icon.
I’d be glad to have you or anyone with perspective on this to guest blog at http://www.UsefulArts.us. There are lots of reasons for companies and people to get this right, and its hard to tell just where the line of attribution must be drawn.