Related articles and links |  1 of 2

Last week the Los Angeles Times published a passing strange commentary on one of Charles Colson's recent Christianity Today columns. Colson's column was titled "Post-Truth Society," and it explored the reasons that lying has become so prevalent in our cultural context. The column referred to a number of high-profile liars—from historian Joseph Ellis, who invented a Vietnam war record for himself, to George O'Leary whose brief, five-day career as Notre Dame's football coach ended when fabrications on his résumé were brought to light.

The Los Angeles Times's Tim Rutten thought "Post-Truth Society" was problematic, since (according to Nancy Pearcey, former Colson staffwriter) Colson did not write the column that bore his byline and his picture.

Rutten called me as he was working on his piece. I told him several things:

First, that we knew that Charles Colson used the help of a writing team to produce his prodigious output. In fact, I had written about this in one of my editor's notes in 1996 when he decided to share his byline with Nancy Pearcey.

Second, that when Pearcey left his employ a few years ago, he had begun to write his columns singlehandedly. (I told Rutten I hadn't talked to Chuck recently about how he was producing his columns now.)

Third, that Chuck is not oblivious to the ethical questions involved in writing with the help of a staff; that he has in the past made decisions as to when and how to credit staff based on a variety of factors. You might disagree with Colson as to when and how he applies the standard he has developed, I told Rutten, but you can hardly complain that he has no standard or compare him with other Christian leaders who simply fail to credit staffwriters and ghostwriters at all.

Fourth, that Rutten should call Chuck to get the full story. I provided the necessary phone number.

I was actually amazed when I saw Tim Rutten's column. He mixed hearsay from some years back with speculation about the way Colson's staffwriters work today. That combination is the recipe for innuendo.

The column suggested that Chuck usually just signs off on drafts produced by his writers. And if I were to ask Colson about how this particular column came to be, Rutten's source averred, I would discover that his contribution "is much less than the public imagines." (Did his source hire Gallup or Yankelovich to find out what "the public imagines"?)

Well, I talked to Chuck and to some of his staff, and here's my report:

First, after about 18 months of solo writing, Chuck returned to relying on his staffwriters for help with his columns.

Second, of all the writing that Chuck and his staff produce, his greatest personal involvement is in his columns for Christianity Today.

Third, Chuck was thoroughly involved in writing "Post-Truth Society." He provided me with a copy of a memo dated last September in which he outlined in detail his ideas for the column. The memo also suggested resource people to talk to and previous material he had written on which his staff could draw. He orchestrated the process by which this column came to be. The staff added illustrations, consulted the reference people he pointed them to, and wrote smooth, easy-to-read copy for two BreakPoint radio scripts and one CT column. They made a great contribution. But Chuck didn't just sign off on a staff-written piece: the column has his fingerprints all over it.

Now for a few random observations about staffwriting and ghostwriting.

First, if Total Wreck, Arizona, is a ghost town, Washington, D.C., is a ghostwriter's town. Those who are skilled researchers and writers are in high demand on Capitol Hill, in the White House, by issue-driven activists—even by some syndicated columnists!

next page... |  1 of 2

March (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46