I agree with you in principle – no-one disputes this system has faults – but let’s not get unrealistic here.

I was merely pointing to a truth that “authorship” is not a black-and-white issue. Painters and photographers have assistants, authors have researchers, journalists have trainees, politicians have interns, da, da, da. While in an ideal world they should all get credit (and I’ve been on both sides of this argument in the past) power and prestige relationships plus the shorthand that is inevitable in politics and journalism work against this.

A think-piece written and signed by an unknown researcher at the request of a major politico would be unlikely to get published. But put it out under the name of the Minister or Secretary of State and hey, presto!

By all means let’s campaign for joint authorship or subsidiary credit or whatever, but there will allways be a market for ghost-written content, be it newspapers or books or blogs.

Key passage:

OJR: Will there be ghost writers or assistants who might write for some of the group bloggers?

Arianna Huffington: That will never happen. They will never bother to do that, it’s not of any interest to them. The majority of the people are people who are on e-mail a lot, they IM their friends. What we’re asking them to do is basically tell us the thoughts they’re already having, the conversations they’re already having, the takes they’re already having.

Now some of them who don’t use a computer like Arthur Schlesinger might fax it. I personally don’t have a problem with that. I’d rather have Arthur Schlesinger online, his own voice, his own thoughts, than say, ‘You know what, you have to learn how to use our software, we can’t have you on.’ I’m sure there are some purists who think that, no, you should actually use the blogging software, you should use Movable Type. But I don’t have a problem with Arthur Schlesinger faxing me his thoughts, or someone calling from his cell phone and dictating something, but it has to be his thoughts — that has to be unequivocal.

Unequivocal, huh?

However, we’re not dimbos. When we see an article in a serious newspaper by (say) Condi Rice or Jack Straw we don’t expect them to have written the detailed words themselves. But we do expect them to have read and cleared the content, agree with it and be held to account for what’s being written under their byline if they are wrong or defamatory.

The point of this case is that it’s a very public and loud demonstration of how that pseudo-authenticity is being manufactured. Because the claim is that the “More Voice For The Voiceful” site supposedly isn’t like the ghost-written op-ed pieces, but it was.

The asymmetry is that the people who remain the audience are told it’s different this time – and it’s not.