Is Ghostwriting Bad?

The victory of the every day citizens that defeated the Saint Lawrence Cement plant is nothing short of incredible and commendable. The citizens of the Hudson Valley fought for what they believed in - the preservation of their clean air, open spaces, and way of life - and won. David beat Goliath.

But one argument against the Saint Lawrence Cement company that Silverman mentions in the first chapter of Stopping the Plant confuses me. Silverman writes, "SLC was caught "ghostwriting" a number of letters the editor in support of the plant, an action viewed by the opposition as evidence of the unethical nature of the company" (20). Unfortunately, Silverman does not elaborate on what she means by "ghostwriting". If she means that Saint Lawrence Cement wrote letters under fake names, or had its employees submit letters to the editor without indicating that they are employees of SLC, I absolutely agree that SLC was out of line and, at the very least, acted in a misleading manner. However, it seems more likely that SLC employees wrote letters, and then other people (members of the public who supported the plant) decided to sign the letters, which were then sent to newspapers. That would be standard "ghostwriting". If that is indeed the case, what's wrong with that? Even if SLC employees write the letters, the undersigned would not sign the letters unless they agree with the statements contained therein. In fact, such "ghostwriting" is an essential practicality in many grassroots movements! Ask yourself, have you ever signed your name to a form letter through a website that then automatically e-mailed your letter to your Congressman? Odds are, you have! And odds are, your Congressmen took note when thousands of the same letter, signed by thousands of different concerned citizens, showed up at his/her office! That form of ghostwriting works, not because it's deceptive or unethical, but because it's a quick and easy way for citizens to express their beliefs or concerns!