Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 711–720 | Cite as

Crafting a public image: An empirical study of the ethics of ghostwriting

  • Linda A. Riley
  • Stuart C. Brown
Article

Abstract

Ghostwriting is viewed by some as a necessary element for crafting an effective public image. Defenders of ghostwriting see no ethical dilemma in the practice because the audience knows the “speechgiver” is not necessarily the “speechwriter.” Alernatively, those regarding ghostwriting as unethical view the practice as deceitful. This group argues that the audience does not recognize the employment of a speechwriter and thus a speechgiver relies on the words of another to fortify personal ethos. This article examines several positions regarding the ethics of ghostwriting and discusses an empirical study testing three major positions found in ghostwriting literature. Findings from the study indicate that respondents do recognize the use of speechwriters by certain individuals in certain circumstances.

Keywords

Economic Growth Empirical Study Ethos Ethical Dilemma Study Testing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Auer, J. J.: 1984, ‘Ghostwriting and the Cult of Leadership Response’, Communication Education 33, 306–307.Google Scholar
  2. Bormann, E. G.: 1956, ‘Ghostwriting Agencies’, Today's Speech 4, 20–23.Google Scholar
  3. Bormann, E. G.: 1960, ‘Ghostwriting and the Rhetorical Critic’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 46, 284–288.Google Scholar
  4. Bormann, E. G.: 1961a, ‘Ethics of Ghostwritten Speeches’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 47, 262–267.Google Scholar
  5. Bormann, E. G.: 1961b, ‘Ghostwritten speeches — A Reply’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 47, 420–421.Google Scholar
  6. Bormann, E. G.: 1984, ‘Ghostwriting and the Cult of Leadership Response’, Communication Education 33, 304–305.Google Scholar
  7. Brigance, W. N.: 1956, ‘Ghostwriting Before Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Radio’, Today's Speech 4.3, 10–12.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, K. K. and K. H. Jamieson: 1990, Deeds Done in Words: Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance (Chicago University Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
  9. Corbett, E. P. J.: 1965, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
  10. Duffy, B. K. and M. R. Winchell: 1989, ‘“Speak the Speech, I Pray You,” The Practice and Perils of Literary and Oratorical Ghostwriting’, Southern Communication Journal 55, 102–115.Google Scholar
  11. Einhorn, L. J.: 1981, ‘The Ghosts Unmasked: A Review of Literature on Speechwriting’, Communication Quarterly 30, 41–47.Google Scholar
  12. Einhorn, L. J.: 1988, ‘The Ghosts Talk: Personal Interviews with Three Former Speechwriters’, Communication Quarterly 36, 94–108.Google Scholar
  13. Einhorn, L. J.: 1991, ‘Ghostwriting: Two Famous Ghosts Speak on its Nature and its Ethical Implications’, in R. E. Denton (ed.), Ethical Dimensions of Political Communication (Praeger, New York), pp. 115–144.Google Scholar
  14. Enos, R. L.: 1974, ‘The Persuasive and Social Force of Logography in Ancient Greece’, Central States Speech Journal 25, 4–10.Google Scholar
  15. Haiman, F. S.: 1984, ‘Ghostwriting and the Cult of Leadership’, Communication Education 33, 301–304.Google Scholar
  16. Jamieson, K. H.: 1988, Eloquence in an Electronic Age: The Transformation of Political Speechmaking (Oxford, New York).Google Scholar
  17. Johannesen, R.: 1990, Ethics in Human Communication (3rd ed.) (Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL).Google Scholar
  18. Kennedy, G.: 1963, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
  19. Medhurst, M. J.: 1987, ‘Ghostwritten Speeches: Ethics Isn't the Only Lesson’, Communication Education 36, 241–249.Google Scholar
  20. Murphy, J. J.: 1974, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory From Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (University of California Press, Berkeley).Google Scholar
  21. Noonan, P.: 1990, What I Saw at the Revolution (MacMillan, New York).Google Scholar
  22. Nichols, M. H.: 1963, ‘Ghost Writing: Implications for Public Address’, Rhetoric and Criticism (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge), pp. 135–148.Google Scholar
  23. Seeger, M. W.: 1984, ‘Ghostbusting: Exorcising the Great Man Spirit from the Speechwriting Debate’, Communication Education 34, 353–358.Google Scholar
  24. Sevareid, E.: 1952, In One Ear (Knopf, New York).Google Scholar
  25. Smith, D. K.: 1961, ‘Ghostwritten Speeches’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 47, 416–420.Google Scholar
  26. Starr, D. P.: 1978, How to Handle Speechwriting Assignments (Pilot, New York).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda A. Riley
    • 1
  • Stuart C. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.New Mexico State UniversityLas CrucesUSA

Personalised recommendations