ethics

How writers can fight unreason

This entry was posted in Commentary Writing and tagged ethics honesty reason on by

American society is being torn apart by widespread efforts to deceive and distort. Two broadly defined groups dominate these efforts. One is associated with the Republican Party and Donald Trump and has the support of many elected officials. It has significant representation among media outlets but a limited presence in the academic world. The other is associated with the Democrats but tends to be on its fringes. It doesn’t have a lot of outright support in the mainstream media, but many outlets are reluctant to challenge its outrages. It’s very strong in academia.

The two factions always at each other’s throats, but they’re similar in many important ways. Their goal is power. Keeping their own group in line is as important as attacking those who disagree with them. The important thing is to control their followers and promote hatred of non-followers. They use similar techniques to deceive and control. They want fear and hatred to replace reason.

Writers of nonfiction (and even writers of fiction, in a less direct way) should be on the front lines to challenge all promoters of unreason, taking on their false statements and identifying their methods. It’s a tricky challenge. We’re all subject to manipulation when we let our guard down. We can’t always tell facts from fabrications. We’re each well-informed in some areas and ignorant in others.

Each of us will make mistakes, but we can all contribute to rebuilding a culture of reason. Always double-check the facts and look for logical fallacies. Be ready to call out any of these stunts:
(more…)

Lying for money

This entry was posted in Writer ethics Writing and tagged ethics writing on by

A piece called “Confessions of a Fake News Writer,” by someone using the name Winston Wordsworth, recently came to my attention. You can look it up if you want; I’m not giving this scumbag any “link juice.” He says in the article that he currently accepts money to write lies, so there’s no strong reason to accept anything he says as true. But by Russell’s Paradox, if he’s lying, he’s telling us the truth when he says he lies. And there must be people like this. They deserve to be spat upon.

Winston says he’s “prostituting myself out.” That’s an insult to prostitutes, who mostly deliver honest value for money.
(more…)

Excuses for dishonest writing

This entry was posted in Writer ethics Writing and tagged ethics ghostwriting writing on by

Some people see nothing wrong with writing dishonest articles. A discussion in an online forum recently reminded me of this.

Let me start by clarifying what I mean by dishonest writing. If you’re writing on someone else’s behalf, you can argue for a position which you don’t personally agree with. It’s legitimate if there’s some case for the position and you use accurate facts and valid arguments. You’re helping the customer to present a position in a reasoned way, and there’s nothing wrong with that even if it’s not your position.

It becomes dishonest when your argumentation is dishonest. If you cite sources which you know are unreliable, use arguments which don’t hold up, and present “facts” with no source, you’re serving up counterfeit goods. If the customer is unaware you’re spewing nonsense, you’re cheating the customer. If they do know they’re asking you to deceive, you’re collaborating in cheating the reader. In some cases, it could count as fraud under the law.
(more…)

Being an honest ghostwriter

This entry was posted in Writer ethics Writing and tagged ethics ghostwriting writing on by

It is an honest ghost, that let me tell you.
(Hamlet, Act I, Scene 5)

When you aren’t writing under your own name, the boundaries of honesty aren’t quite the same. You aren’t being hired to say what you believe, but to put someone else’s ideas into words. It isn’t dishonest as such to say things which you don’t personally believe are true, but you don’t have a license to lie. Where’s the boundary you can’t cross without becoming dishonest?

Advocacy vs. deception

The slope is slippery, so I stay well back from the brink. I’m willing to present a case for a conclusion which isn’t clearly false, even if I have doubts about it. For instance, I see no ethical problem with writing an article that says cloud-based VoIP is best on one day, then an article the next day saying an on-premises IP PBX is better. Both are true under some circumstances. However, I won’t write an article claiming an IP PBX is illegal — at least, not until I learn that some government has actually outlawed it.
(more…)