In defence of ghost blogging

There's nothing unethical about ghost blogging.

Before I explain, let me emphasize that I've never done it, I probably never will and we at com.motion recommend that clients not do it. But not because of ethics.

"Ghost blogging" refers to the practice of a professional writer or PR type writing a blog on behalf of an executive or celebrity. This is very much frowned on by most of the social media fishbowl. This point was underscored in a recent session on ethics at the Talk is Cheap unconference at Centennial College and a followup post by panelist Dave Fleet.

After labeling ghost blogging as unethical, the panelists were put on the hotseat by Centennial College public relations students and other participants. Why is it okay to write speeches for clients but not to write blog posts? Dave and Michael O'Connor Clarke said the difference is that when a CEO reads a speech, he takes ownership of the words, even if he didn't write them. Which makes it ethical. But this differentiator doesn't apply to quotes PR people write for executives in press releases, the president's statement in a monthly newsletter or op-eds (newspaper columns) written on their behalf.

The ethical divide isn't disclosure since ghost-writing is rarely acknowledged offline except when it comes to books. And its not expectations, since most newspaper readers probably assume that columns attributed to executives were actually written by them.

So either all this stuff - from ghost quotes to ghost messages to ghost op-eds - is ethical or none of it is. And I lean towards the latter former. (Note, I wrote latter here when I meant to write former, and yes, it does change the meaning of my post).

There is one important difference, but it's not ethical. The difference is consequences. Even if most readers aren't aware that op-eds aren't always written by the "writer," the repercussions of getting found out are almost non-existent. But ghost blogging comes with a motrinmoms-esque public relations risk.

And that's the real reason why - ethics aside - we don't recommend it.

THIS JUST IN: Bloggers make mistakes

It was the kind of story that social media bloggers love. Lawyers at an old economy company were ordering fans to "cease and desist" from showing their love for the brand in user generated content. In this case, Ford was barring Mustang lovers from using pictures of their cars in a calendar.

Great story. Except that it wasn't true.

As Shel Holtz wrote, Ford denied the report, saying it was actually the supplier, CafePress, that wouldn't print the calendars. But after one blogger published the initial report, dozens more piled on in judgement, without ever calling Ford for comment.

Holtz writes:

If I were working for a newspaper today, I would still call Ford. If I had opted to blog about this over the past couple days, I would not have. I’m as guilty as anyone else. (And thank goodness I passed on this story.)

Another example over the weekend: Fred Wilson calls out a couple of "journabloggers" for quoting people without checking the facts, then Michael Arrington of TechCrunch goes after Wilson for saying his own post was "conflicted and wrong."

Do bloggers make more mistakes than journalists?

Is the burden of accuracy different?

Are the consequences of making mistakes in a blog any less significant than in a newspaper or TV report?

These are some of the issues I'll be discussing this weekend at Podcamp Toronto in a seminar with my former Globe and Mail colleague Mathew Ingram. Since we are both bloggers who have also worked as journalists, we may be coming at this from a particular point of view. In the meantime, I'd love to hear your thoughts on these questions.