The answer like so many other questions is it depends. As the owner of a small business, my personal blog is more likely to get read than my personal one. That is the reality in the social media world. The problem is my ideas are great, but writing skills are average at best.

The perfect solution for me was to write or dictate a rough draft, have someone else clear it up and then read, make revisions and approve the final version. This allowed me to retain my voice and the integrity of my ideas but to save about 1/2 a post getting from 80 to 100% done. We now offer this service to our own customers and it's been really well received.

I agree with this post. Blogging is a way for people to engage with their readers, not a way to deceive readers. Yes, there are arguments for ghost blogging that are logical. However, if one is unable to take the time to write a blog, then they should not have a blog in the first place.

I am a professional freelance writer. I write for newspapers and magazines, as well provide online content. This includes website content (Home, About pages etc.) and ghost blogging. It also includes e-books, white papers and traditional marketing materials. Because of the changing economics of print media and traditional publishing (making room for new technologies and new reader habits) many freelancers have had to be increasingly flexible, expanding our repertoire to include writing for social media, blogs, integrated marketing campaigns etc. As my brethren bemoaned the death of their institutions (traditional publishing and print media) I quickly realized that writing (and reading for that matter) were not dying arts but rather being re-imagined in a new realm, one to fit the needs of this generation. I got my certification in SEO and hit the ground running in the new world of social media (quickly becoming a go-to-gal for advice.) I didn't do this to change my career track from writer to Web 2.0 Guru, but rather to better serve the emerging needs of the new medium. I want to write. People want to read and learn and share -- online, in real-time. As a writer there is nothing more exciting than researching and learning something new, digesting it and reformulating it for an audience in a way that is entertaining and informative. By ghostwriting, I get to explore different voices, tones and topics. I get to learn something fresh everyday and I get to share my words (and what I learned) with the world, hopefully in a way that helps someone else pursue their goals. For me, the question of ethics here is a funny one. Every layman nowadays knows the term social media marketing and most understand that this realm includes blogging. Now, there are firms all over the country that are providing, not only copywriting services (such as ghost blogging) but integrated marketing campaigns that include status updates, discussions and tweets. This is a world that has merged creatives, marketers, computer nerds and even journalists No one expects that the CEO of Old Spice was penning the words tumbling out of Isaiah Mustafa's mouth, nor did they believe that Isaiah himself was responding to those tweets (via Youtube) unscripted. That's because we all understand the world of marketing. Not everyone is creative enough to come up with these types of entertaining concepts, that is why many companies hire marketing firms to come up with compelling or entertaining content to advertise their brand. Blogging has become a hybrid. No longer are blogs just a place to share your opinions or insights, they have become a strong marketing tool – increasing your Google juice, establishing expertise and a pulpit from which to preach your brand’s message. But what if you’re not a great writer? What if you’re the kind of person who is better at doing your business than talking (or writing) about it? What if you just plain hate writing? You outsource to someone like me. And it would serve you well to do so. Because the clients I work for, fully control their message. They send me topics and links and I get to know their voice and opinions and what sites they find to be credible. Their message goes out – and it IS theirs but it is the best version of their message – a polished, well-researched, engaging, keyword-peppered, linked, optimized, typo-free and grammatically correct message. My clients hire me because they may be experts in their chosen field but they are not experts in writing, blogging, SEO or social media. Just because you're not a plumber doesn't mean you have skip fixing that overflowing toilet. You can outsource it to someone who is qualified to fix it on your behalf and you're not required to post a sign in your yard saying that someone else fixed your toilet. Because no one will call your ethics in to question for not being an expert on everything. (BTW- Thanks for giving me a new blog topic for www.play-onwords.com)

Interesting post, A new term for me GhostBlogging Still can't decide it's wrong or right and why

First let me start off by saying what an excellent debate topic this is. I have to say I can see the reasoning behind both arguments. I agree with Dave in that this idea of social media has been built upon this notion of interactivity and communicating on more of a personal level (in a way making things more informal) I do think that ghost blogging compromises this a bit. The appeal of blogging versus an article in say the New York Times is that it is more personal and opinionated rather than the classic, unbiased, AP Style of writing we seem accustomed to reading. However, OMGWTFWYT touches on an interesting point when he/she asks why having someone else write the blog makes a difference if the thoughts are your's? I believe there is some validity to the point, especially when Dave commented on B's post that it does in fact take skill and talent to write a blog and get results (which I agree with) so then taking that into account how can you be competitive writing a blog yourself if you are not skilled enough to get results? Yes, you can do a video blog, or audio, or even link to a flicker account, but let's be honest and say to a newbie to social media the least intimidating is a blog.

The "new media" in and of itself is a completely unregulated medium which requires no training or expertise whatsoever. It's almost laughable that such a Bastian of new media would ponder the "ethics" involved in ghost blogging.

Terrance - you're right - disclosure is the key thing. The generic corporate blog is another option; one that many choose to use. I have no problem with that - it's deceptive practices that I have a problem with. It might not be ideal but I have no ethical issue with that approach.

I can understand your concerns about ethics, but you're really placing an unnecessary burden on people by telling them that it's never okay to hire a professional writer. Do you hold the same standard of personal participation when it comes to all business writing, including newsletters, proposals, ad copy, press releases, and articles? I am a paid blogger, and I think the alternatives you propose can be useful, to a point. I have not, and would not, actually claim to be another person, and I think that's the crux of your concern. As an employee of a business, I did blog under my own name, because as a member of the staff my knowledge was part of the practice's overall expertise. However, if I'm not an employee this option doesn't make sense. An option you didn't suggest is that of the generic business blog - posts that don't include an authorship line. I write for blogs like this all day long, and rather than harming my clients' credibility, it enhances it! There are plenty of people who are experts in their own fields, but can't blog terribly well because that field isn't WRITING. Thankfully, many of them are aware of how much harm poorly-written blog posts can do to a company, which is why they look to me or another ghost blogger to put their ideas into words. Please tell the butchers and bakers and candlestick makers that they may go back to what they do best, and that it's really okay to let writers do what THEY do best in turn. I'm not too busy writing to learn how to make tallow anytime soon.

Great blog, will link to it on our site, we are dedicated to exposing ghost written twitter accounts, we are about to put up a page on social media celebrities.

I'm a bit torn since I do offer ghostwriting services. However, so that I don't straddle the fence, I will say that I'm not too concerned with the authority behind the blog post as long as the information I'm reading is indeed correct.

The way I see it, ghostwriting is ghostwriting and can be done ethically in any medium. I've elaborated on this in great detail here. http://koifishcommunications.com/blog/?p=525

Great post and timing Dave! I'm involved in planning a Social Media Breakfast in Toledo, Ohio, and during a lunch planning meeting Friday, a discussion of ghostblogging and related ethical questions came up. On the ning.com site established for SMB-Toledo, I started a blog post and highlighted your post so others could read and learn WHY. GHOSTBLOGGING. IS. WRONG! See: http://smbtoledo.ning.com/profiles/blogs/blogging-ethics-why. Take care, -Mike

I agree with Dave on his points about why ghost blogging is wrong if your strategy is to build a “truly” personal relationship between author and reader. But, I only agree with this idea if this is your strategy. If your strategy is to deliver relevant content that people find interesting, and want to publish it in an easy format, and have a conversation with your readers, maybe it’s not so bad? I understand the majority opinion here but I have to say that I disagree with the idea that ghost blogging is “wrong in principal”, and feel we must look at the underlying assumptions being made here: 1,Social media is democratic, meaning the space is a truly liberal and free. The positive here is that you can say what you want, but this also means buyer beware and personal responsibility is needed. This means if I chose to have someone else write for me, that’s my choice. You may not agree with it, but I still have the freedom do it. Just like you have the freedom to simply stop reading the blog or comment on the post. 2, What defines our “true selves” on the internet? Whatever makes it under her ‘by line’, whether she wrote it or not, is a representation of what she thinks and believes. The bottom line for me is that as long as she is willing to put her reputation behind what it says, it might as well be her saying it. Now before I’m pounced on, I’ve elaborated on these ideas here (Dave, I hope it’s ok to link to my post from your blog): http://www.connectdigitally.com/2/post/2009/02/why-ghost-blogging-is-wronga-dissenting-opinion-sort-of.html

Wow Dave, quite the discussion you've got going here. Lots of good debate, but in the end, my opinion still firmly holds that ghost-blogging is just plain wrong. If you actually *want* to be in the social media space and respect that space, there are other ways of hosting a blog as others have pointed out. Having someone else write it for you (type it, write it, sprinkle-content-fairy-dust-whatever on it) just doesn't make any sense and really flies in the face of the pillars of social media which Terry outlined very early on. I'm surprised to see so many people have skipped over those important points. And as a side note - people who do not reveal their own identity in this space also bother me. OMGWTFWYT - I don't see any 'About' section or contact info on your blog?

Wow! Loads of discussion on this topic. Great post and a lot of good points on blogging ethics and why ghost blogging is wrong. A couple thoughts on how this may differ from other forms of "ghostwriting" - Lots of CEOs and Politician (and other busy people) have ghostwriters for speeches - but when they make the speeches themselves they are actively delivering it. Possibly adding their own twist to the written words - and authenticating that they OWN the words (and that they agree with what is written). - Ghostwritten articles and such are likely reviewed and fact checked (you would hope) by the individual who is meant to have written it. It seems they would be more involved in a process done infrequently - then a blog which must be written far more regularly. I would still rather these were written by the individual - but I recognize that these are regular practice. I think you have some great alternatives to ghost blogging. Blogging is so wonderful the way it is now - honest, and authentic...it will be sad when we have to question everything we read as to both the intention AND the writer.

Interesting comparison between blog post ghost writing and art by Thorne However, art is about the visual, and by comparing it to writing is like saying that it is the words themselves that people focus on in a blog post. This is not the case; the “art” in a blog post is the ideas the post provides, the insights. Much less important is how they are delivered. Therefore, if the person in the byline had input on the ideas/insights, I still say that calling the practice “wrong” is too harsh. And as we know, particularly in this day and age, the writers of music rarely ever get the glory. So that comparison is almost one in the same. Though I was a little crushed when I learned Elton John didn’t write Tiny Dancer ;)

So, uh, who's less ethical? The ghost writer or the person they're writing for? The pusher or the addict?

Great discussion. I wrote about a ghost-blogging service I'd heard about close to 2 years ago and some similar pro/con discussion was brought up in my comments at the time. http://www.prworks.ca/2007/03/introducing-blog-o-matic-act-now/ Best thing to do is to see how viable Forgetablogit actually is as a business idea two years later. Check out their site: http://www.forgetablogit.com. What's that? You get an "address not found" error? Shocker.

If only I could get credit for all the brilliant blog posts, quotes, inventions and speeches that I have reviewed and agreed with.

RE: "so long as the post are reviewed by the person they are attributed to, and that person has some stake in the content of the article (ideas expressed) and is in agreement with its content, I really do not see the problem.” It's deceitful. Suppose whoever commissioned a piece of art or music falsely claimed authorship of it. That would be deceitful. To put your name to something you did not create is just flat-out deceitful. And once people realize you've been BSing them . . . .

I agree with Scott Fry: "so long as the post are reviewed by the person they are attributed to, and that person has some stake in the content of the article (ideas expressed) and is in agreement with its content, I really do not see the problem."

Thanks for this, Dave. I've written several times on the ethical issues surrounding ghost blogging and I'm right there with you. The lamest argument supporting ghost blogging is that books, annual report letters, speeches, and other communications are routinely ghost-written and people don't have a problem with it. This ignores the social dimension of a blog. If it says, "This is my blog" but someone else is writing it, it's as disingenuous as it gets and insulting to readers who have been attracted to the blog in order to hear -- and possibly engage -- with you. If you don't want to write your own blog, don't blog. There are more than enough alternate channels that you don't have to hoodwink your audience. That said, WRITING your own blog and TYPING it are two different things. Bill Marriott dictates his posts into a digital recorder that his communications staff transcribes, word-for-word. That's fine; they're still his words, which is the heart of the issue.

Dave, thanks for writing about this! I love your angle here. I just wrote about it too on MarketingProfs Daily Fix and my blog. If I might add to the debate here with a little snippet (re: ethics):   In Richard Johannesen’s book “Ethics in Human Communication,” he analyzes the ethics of ghostwriting with a series of questions*:   1. What is the communicator’s intent and what is the audience’s degree of awareness? 2. Does the communicator use ghostwriters to make herself/himself appear to possess personal qualities that she/he does not have? 3. What are the surrounding circumstances of the communicator’s job that make ghostwriting a necessity? 4. To what extent does the communicator actively participate in the writing of her/his own writing? 5. Does the communicator accept responsibility for the message she/he presents?   Those questions and the ethics surrounding them are easily answered in the traditional marketing and/or public relations arena. But what happens when you add social media into the mix? How do the ethics around ghostwriting change when companies are supposed to be authentic and transparent?   *Source: Public Relations Writing: The Essentials of Style & Format by Thomas H. Bivins   Here's the issue as I see it...a lot of PR/Marketing folks are trying to transfer their normal understanding/writing (A LOT of ghostwritting) to the world of social media. It doesn't work in the context of being authentic, transparent and honest. Social media tools (blogging, Facebook, Twitter, etc) cannot be interchanged with press releases, speeches, bylines and the like. Social media, the ability to share and discuss information has changed how we as marketers/PR folks interact.   For argument's sake & totally fictional: What if Nike set up a soccer blog for girls (say ages 5-18) and had Mia Hamm blogging and commenting with all her fans (i.e. all posts has Mia Hamm’s name on them). Nike becomes a huge success with this blog and their sales skyrocket (coincidently they just also happen to release the "Mia Hamm soccer cleat"). Then one day, Mia Hamm does a charity soccer event and some of her biggest blog fans show up (let's assume PR isn't involved in a publicity stunt) and they approach Mia and say "I just LOVE your blog! But I have a question on post X." And Mia stares at them like "Huh?" And the girls get it...right away...it wasn't really Mia at all, they stop going to the blog, Nike's sales drop. Oh, and yeah, the one 18 year old has her own blog and writes about Nike's fake blog with the fake Mia Hamm posts, Newsweek picks up on it, then AdAge, then Twitter... Sound farfetched? Google Wal-Mart/Edelman.   If an agency/freelance writer/consultant ghostwrites (i.e. writes the copy based off a thought, due to poor writing skills, etc), they are ultimately setting that client (and yourself) up for a brand management debacle. Why even do it? Like Dave said, counsel them to try other social media tactics.

Leesa - thanks for your comments. This post is more about a discussion you helped spark than you in particular, however I should point out that you saying your site isn't ghost-written contradicts what I remember you saying in the session and what you've said here: http://twitter.com/leesabarnes/status/1237458287- "how can "ghostblogging" be inauthentic? to me, i outsource the tasks I hate. since writing is one of them, I delegate it #pcto09" If I'm mis-remembering (I'll know for sure when I see the session video) and if your post was a typo, then all is well, and I hope this post was helpful for you.

Also, to Danny's point, I didn't say that there's no relationship building with blogs. I said that relationships are more than just text on a blog. Relationship building with blogs also includes replying to comments, emailing commenters privately and using it to post video & audio. Sharing my voice with my readers and building rapport using various tools on my blog. In any case, Dave, thanks for creating a space at Podcamp where I could share my viewpoint. You were an awesome moderator. You didn't take sides and instead, you allowed us to debate.

Great discussion point, Dave. And I think it's one that needs to be fleshed out even more. IMHO, there's a fine line somewhere between deceptive ghost-writing and key-stroking what someone dictates. Depending on how much input the "ghost-author" has on content, phrasing and the final product, the practice of ghost writing can be seen as more or less acceptable. Where the line is located differs for everyone depending on the context/situation. But one thing remains constant: the blogosphere demands transparency. One point you touched on that I haven't seen in the comments is the effect of ghost writing on the medium of blogging as a whole. This is an important issue that those who participate in ghost-writing need to be aware of (in addition to the personal risk they're assuming by participating in behavior that some may find deceptive).

So, we can't have spokespeople for blogging? Say we're running a company with thousands of employees, and many of our other responsibilities absolutely cannot be delegated. If we still want to make ourselves available to the public through a spokesperson, that's not okay? And again, does this apply to blogging only? Or does it also apply to letters to the editor and other executive communications? Where is the line, please?

No, no, no. I said that I don't see anything wrong with a ghost written blog. I didn't say that mine was ghost written. I'm still trying to decide if that is the right way to go since I only update it about once a week and I'd love to add more content. I like your alternative ideas on how to make my blog more dynamic. I've been considering the multi-author approach since Danny Brown suggested it. And you'll start seeing more videos. But, no, my blog is still written by me and has been since 2006.

Just for argument's sake, how is ghost writing a blog any different from ghost writing a bylined article for a magazine or manufacturing an executive's quote for a news release? It seems the same to me, although I will say since there's a more authentic feel to a blog, it stands to reason the person writing it should be honest about their intentions. But it does seem a bit hypocritical when you know so many other forms of communication out there are guest written in order to more accurately convey a point.

As a PR consultant, I don't accept ghost blogging mandates. I do take the time to explain why I don't consider it to be a viable strategy and propose other solutions (ex: the collaborative blog, the community manager). Perhaps I'm a purist, but I have far too much respect for the authenticity that I consider to be part and parcel of social media to go in that direction. Blogging isn't for everyone. There are other ways to communicate. If you're going to bother to be in the space, embrace it fully. This involves time and commitment, but it can be a ROI that is more than worthwhile. As for whether or not a blogger has 'spare time' .. well .. not all my work-day time is billable. Is yours? Don't you take clients to lunch? Attend Chamber of commerce functions or conferences? Read the business section of the newspaper? I blog as part of my business development strategy and it has more than paid off. There are many ways to grow a business. If blogging is one of yours .. if it is a kind of business card that is meant to let people know who you are, what you think and what you stand for .. you may want to think twice before letting someone else do all that on your behalf. Thanks for the great post and session on Saturday and Sunday morning Dave. Always a pleasure, even when technology isn't being cooperative ;)

Sure opened up a can of worms here, Dave (and saved me writing on the topic too, thanks!). ;-) A blog (to work effectively) needs a lot of time and *love* - otherwise it'll come across as half-hearted and just be a waste of time on valued resources (i.e., time with family, job, etc). If you feel that you can't put the time into a blog that makes it work, then either don't start one or realize it and look at other avenues to get your message across. Despite what many people say, not every individual or business needs (or should have) a blog. From a business standpoint, if your core audience aren't the type that reads blogs then you'd just be wasting your time anyway. Concentrate it on the area(s) that's more effective. With regards to OMGWTFWYT's comment about who cares, I looked at his/her blog and saw that each entry has "By OMGWTFWYT" next to it. That tells me they wrote it. If I suddenly find out that's not the case, all my trust has been eroded in an instant - do you really want that? As far as ghost blogging goes, you have to edit and approve and check facts coming in from the ghost blogger - so the "too much time" argument seems redundant when you have to factor in all that new work. That is, I assume that facts and the like ARE being checked... To look at Leesa'a argument that there's no relationship building on blogs. Taking a quick look at her blog stats on Compete.com, she has 7,000 unique visitors per month (it may be more - the data is an estimate as Leesa isn't optimized over there). Is Leesa saying that these 7,000 people don't count? That they should be reading elsewhere because she doesn't really care what they think? I'm sure that's not the case, but stating there's no relationship building with blogs makes it look that way.

I think there's a very fine line between outsourcing the typing of a post and pitching some writer an idea/subject matter and let them write the post - that fine line can be confusing to your readers. I would assume a lot of people expect to read a post that was written by the listed author. If they find out the post was written, or even just typed by someone else, they might feel tricked or lose trust. Are you willing to take that risk, even if your post was simply typed by someone else? Would your readers get that?

I would be shocked if Leesa did not review (or even consult on the content of) each of the blog posts her ghost writer prepares before they are made public. Therefore she has a stake in each post. This is not transcription or dictation, the ghost writer still pens the piece, but the content is shared. If she does not review/give her opinion on each post, than I most certainly agree that the practice is “wrong.” That being said, I reiterate, the better idea and the one I would advise would be to, as Thorne says, “give credit where credit is due.” But saying that the practice is “wrong,” even if she has a stake in the post, I believe, is too harsh a criticism.

If you hate writing, you shouldn't be blogging. I totally agree that blogging is about creating relationships, especially in the social media realm. Great article Dave. On a personal level I love writing posts on my blog and it's even more satisfying that someone, somewhere has gotten something out of it.

RE: "If you’re dictating and approving the content before it’s posted, who the hell cares if you keystroked it." [?] The point isn't who "keystroked it." It's who the author is. If I put my name to something written by another, I've deceived you. Sure, some people don't have time to write. In that case, they shouldn't make believe that they do. That's deceitful. You can't take credit for someone else's work. That's deceitful, whether it's a blog post, or a magazine article, or a watercolor, or a meal, or whatever. Credit where credit is due. That's what I say

Great post, Dave, and a lively inComment conversation. A couple of responses to comments above. Transcribing is not ghost-writing. If I type up what you say and put it on your blog, I'm not a ghost-writer. Ghost-writing is the topic of this post. If outsourcing writing of my personal blog no problem, it's odd that doing so is "taking a risk because there are reputation ramifications if the ghost writing practice is uncovered"

The conversation is not being framed the right way, who makes the key strokes is irrelevant- it is the content that is important. A dictated blog post to a secretary is NOT ghostwritten. And a law clerk that writes a post that was thought up and outlined by an attorney isn't ghost written either.

I am somewhat torn on this issue. I do believe that ideally should a blog be ghost written, it should be made clear that that is the situation; or better yet, just admit who is the actual writer and give them their own credibility. On the other hand, so long as the post are reviewed by the person they are attributed to, and that person has some stake in the content of the article (ideas expressed) and is in agreement with its content, I really do not see the problem. Indeed, they are taking a risk because there are reputation ramifications if the ghost writing practice is uncovered. But I disagree with the value judgment that the practice is “wrong,” because I do not believe that the act of putting keystroke to page is as important as the content of each post. I believe the practice is dangerous and wouldn’t personally assume such a risk, but feel labeling it as “wrong” is not accurate. Great post though, highly debatable topic.

I think you miss MY point. If you're dictating and approving the content before it's posted, who the hell cares if you keystroked it. And, my apologies. Apparently, you're a much better time manager than some people. You write in your spare time - so that implies you have spare time. However, you don't take into account that some people don't. There are other people in the world who get up, work around the house, go to work, work a 10 hour day, come home, cook dinner, spend time with their spouse and/or kids, and then are left with maybe 1 or two hours to engage in their hobbies before they have to go to sleep so that they have enough energy to do it all over again the next day. Apparently, for you, writing in your blog is one of your important activities - something you want to do in your spare time, rather than something you're doing for business. I understand this, as MY blog is done entirely in MY spare time as well. BUT, I'm looking at it from the POV of the person for whom blogging is something they're trying to do to enhance their business. Normally, this would be done on the clock, right? But if you're spending 10-12 hour days just trying to keep your company afloat, meeting with sales prospects, managing data/people, building things, etc. posting online might not be something you have time for. But you still might need to have a blog presence so that you can work the online avenue to build business. Does that mean you have to lose time with your family or life? Maybe. Apparently, you believe that if you want to be on the blogosphere, you should be willing to make that sacrifice. But I disagree. The question I'm posing is: if it's your content - not someone else, YOURS, YOUR THOUGHTS, who cares if you actually constructed each sentence? And you haven't responded to that.

You raise a fascinating point. In some regard, however, I am with OMGWTFWYT. While you may be able to blog, you may also have a gift for writing. Many executives don't. I've always found it disturbing to find that a letter to an editor has been ghost-written. Actually, I don't mind if it's from an executive because I DO expect an executive to choose the talking points and delegate. I don't expect it from an otherwise unknown citizen. You offer some good solutions. Perhaps the best win/win for executives that are too busy to write, or who are not gifted writers, is the suggested solution of clearly posting on the site that they have chosen the talking points and have delegated the rest.

I should add, though - even though I don't agree with OMGWTFWYT above, I appreciate the contribution. This debate and the back-and-forth is important, so thanks!

Well argued post Dave. I agree completely. As for the viewpoint of OMGWTFWYT in the comment above, the difference is, when you blog, the expectation, even the unstated promise, is that the post is written by the person whose name appears on the masthead. Full stop. It's not the same as a CEO speech to a Chamber of Commerce or even to business correspondence. The standards are different. In the blogosphere, authenticity, transparancy, and full disclosure rule. It is the price of entry to this world. No ghost blogging. (I wrote this entire comment myself...)

Hi "OMGWTFWYT" I think you miss my point here. Some traditional tactics are ghost-written, and as a result trust has eroded when people realize that. Also, there's a different expectation online. As I wrote: "People reading a blog expect the person listed as the author to be the one writing the post. This expectation is critical, and is a key difference between new and old media (where, for many people, this kind of practice long ago eroded the credibility of many tactics)." As for your statement that "only people who blog for a living have that kind of time," that's just inaccurate. With one or two exceptions, every blog post on this site is written in my spare time, not at work. I do this while maintaining both hobbies, including marathon running, and a long-term relationship. This alone disproves your categorical statement.

I think this argument is misleading. Most business correspondence - even the personal letters by business people to friends - is often dictated. Frequently, the business person gives an outline of points they want to make and someone else does the actual writing. Does that make that letter fraudulent or misleading? I don't think anyone would state that. The business person is making the points, it's his/her POV. Who the heck cares who wrote these points into a readable framework? So why do we care about who writes the blog? Why does it matter who pounds the keystrokes? I can state some agreement that it's disconcerting if the owner of the blog has nothing at all to do with the content being posted. But does that really happen? Frequently enough to make this debate necessary? The rest is pure ideological debate that has no real relevance in the reality of day-to-day business. I mean, come on. Do we really believe that a person who works a full time job running a business has time to fine-tune a blog post? Only those who've managed to blog for a living have that kind of time. The rest of us have hobbies and families to tend to. If we opt to have someone else do our writing so that we can spend a couple more hours with our spouses and kids, why the hell should anyone out in the blogosphere care? Doesn't that make us richer human beings more capable of deeper thoughts, more relevant points that we can then dictate to a secretary who will type into a reasonable and readable blog? (And for the record, I have no secretary and I write all my own blog posts. Honest.)

Thorne - good point. I'd thought that before. You've prompted me to fix it - thank you!