So, as with all things that I come across, I came across this entirely accidentally. But it is a rather compelling and detailed argument for Obama's first book, his early memoir, having been ghostwritten. It's rather lengthy and if you're the type of person who actually cares about this, I would recommend simply reading the entire thing as the manner in which it's written makes an even more convincing case than a synopsis does.
It turns out that a rather extensive analysis of "Obama" v. "Ayers" has littered the internet (see blog thoughts, yahoo answers nonsense, misc republican thoughts, etc.). To clarify, the quotes are there because at issue is who exactly is responsible for texts published under these names.
Again, as I was suggesting in my initial paragraph, this is not something I particularly care about, since most people who write memoirs use a ghostwriter. I also flat-out don't care whether Obama actually authored a book or not. In fact, for me, ghostwriting is a non-issue. There are plenty of people out there who have strong arguments against taking a broad view of this sentiment. And I agree that if, for example, articles for medical journals are signed by top doctors but are actually authored by pharmaceutical companies, that presents an issue. Of course, more importantly it makes the point that far too much credence is given to the ramblings of these individuals, merely because they are "doctors" and not "pharma employees." I am certainly no supporter of the nasty medical industry that is American pharma, but things are not medically accurate and useful to the public merely because they are spouted off by doctors, and the inverse is true; information isn't irrelevant and dangerous merely because it comes from a pharma company. Yes, critical reading seems more important when reading an article written by a pharmaceutical company, as it has a vested economic interest in what is being discussed. The assumption is that you should in fact read more critically than you would an article by a "disinterested" doctor (assuming such a thing exists). My parenthetical there again reiterating my point -there is always an economic interest in what a doctor does, since he is constantly selling himself as a product. So whether it's getting published, promoting a drug he's getting a kickback on, establishing his presence in the industry so he can get trips and free meals from pharma cos in the future or merely to get more patients, there is always an economic interest.
So why go off on the above tangent as part of a discussion about ghostwriting? The assumption is that using a ghostwriter is somehow misleading - that it presents Obama as someone he's not. But that's only if you're working under the mistaken assumption that people are actually responsible for things published under their names. Even under the best scenario, the editors have enormous control over what is ultimately published, often contrary to the preferences of the writer. A memoir is merely one form of narration, providing a more compelling, inspiring, and empathetic read than a standard biography. To jump to an unrelated conclusion from reading Obama's memoir, that it is proof of Obama's brilliance, is to make the mistake I alluded to above, associating content with the author.
Everything you read has to be read with the assumption that the person behind the article has absolutely nothing to do with it. You need to read it for its content alone, and analyze it on that basis. It speaks to my views on equality and universal opportunity but more importantly, it's a necessity in a world where anyone can publish anything on any subject. It's also necessary in a world where those with the power to control ideas are increasingly devoid of what most individuals assume is basic morality. You can never assume that a writer is looking out for you, no matter what it sounds and feels like. The writer is looking out for himself.
Posts
