“The greatest advantage of speaking the truth is that you don't have to remember what you said.”

— RE:BOOKS

By Amber Heard Rebecca

What you're about to read may or may not be my opinion at all. 

Maybe I didn’t even write this. 

Maybe I asked someone else to whip this up for me after I verbally shared some rambling thoughts. 

Or maybe someone else wrote this and then asked me if it was okay to slap my byline on it.

I write this as a disillusioned journalist: You can’t be sure of anything you read anymore in a newspaper. 

No wonder people hate journalists.

Would your opinion of guest op-ed pieces change if you learned they were not actually written by the names you see on the byline? 

My opinion certainly has.

The latest reason (#247) why I’m disillusioned with the media in general is the Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard trial. And not for the reasons you’d think.

While everyone else is fixated on who was shitting the bed (#MePoo), or on how much Heard “donated” or “pledged,” the journalist in me was blindsided to learn Heard didn’t even write the Washington Post op-ed — the very op-ed that became the centrepiece of Depp’s $50 million defamation claim.

I know, or thought I knew, all the dirty secrets of journalism. I think I’m upset because the secrets are far dirtier than I (until recently) imagined. As I write (or someone else writes) this, I wonder how many op-eds — "opposite the editorial page” described as a written prose piece that expresses the opinion of an author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board — have been ghostwritten 

This practice of ghostwritten op-eds has apparently existed, albeit as a mostly hidden secret, in newspapers for years.

When it comes to ghostwriting books, I get it. How many athletes, actors, and other celebrities can find time in their hectic schedules to also sit down for months to write a bestseller? That’s if they can even write.

Do we really believe that all the Housewives wrote their NY Times bestsellers? Of course not. We even see clips of them, on the show, meeting with their ghostwriters, who will say to these reality cast members, “I should have the next couple of chapters to you next week,” while said cast member is staring at her reflection getting her glam on.

These days? When an author writes a book, they start hunting around their book proposal or search for an agent. When a celebrity pens their memoirs, they call their publicists. When a powerful organization wants to get their views in a respected newspaper, they call a prominent person to write or “draft" it so they can pitch it to news organizations.

Every year, dozens of books are authored by celebrities and other high-profile individuals who haven’t written anything longer than an email, emojis included. 

Most publishers will push a celebrity or politician toward a ghostwriter or an “editor” who rewrites the entire manuscript.

“As a ghostwriter of nearly two dozen books, I’m often asked what exactly the job title means,” says this ghostwriter. He replies, “I get paid to write other people’s stories, and they get the credit for my work.” Many of my clients are actually decent writers, but their busy schedules don’t allow for them to write a book, speech, or magazine columns.”

“I’ve been hired by entrepreneurs, billionaires, and celebrities to ghostwrite everything from blog posts to magazine articles,” he continues. In most cases, they sought a ghostwriter as a way of building their brands, “rather than lining their bookshelves with literary awards.”

The Free Dictionary defines ghostwriting as “one who writes for and gives credit of authorship to another,” while Oxford Dictionary specifies that a ghostwriter is “a person whose job it is to write material for someone else who is the named author.” 

But did you know how prevalent it is? By some estimates, as many as 60% of nonfiction books on bestsellers lists are ghostwritten (most likely because they were celebrity autobiographies “written” by ghostwriters celebrities.)

“I hear it’s a terrific book. One of these days I’m going to read it myself,” Ronald Reagan once quipped about his “autobiography.”

Celebrities (and their publishers) don’t love the idea of giving credit, or even the illusion of credit, to someone else. Many (if not entirely) require ghostwriters to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) restricting them from taking any credit for the book, or even admitting that they helped! 

And when a celebrity does admit having help, the term ghostwriter is replaced with other words such as “co-author,” “co-writer,” or “collaborator” in an attempt to make it sound like the book was still primarily written by the celebrity. (So, if you see those words on a cover, it was probably definitely written by someone else.)

So, the entire practice of ghostwriting is shaded in secrecy, which I guess is the point. But it’s not just books. If blog posts, articles and now op-eds are often ghostwritten, it’s disheartening at best. At worst, in my opinion, which may or may not be my opinion, it’s unethical for publications to not be transparent about the byline, famous or not.

Journalists stopped being journalists that follow the story and became ghosts that follow the money. It’s a lucrative business to write for those with power and money who can get that op-ed into a prominent newspaper with a casual email like: Hey, wondering if you may be interested in…by [insert famous person] about [insert salacious topic].

Which is exactly what happened in this circus trial.

According to testimony, the ACLU wrote the op-ed and pitched it to the Washington Post. A member of their communications team wrote to the op-ed editor something along the lines of: Hey, wondering if we might interest you in a piece by Amber Heard (who, as you may recall, was beaten up during her brief marriage to Johnny Depp), on what the incoming Congress can to do to help protect women in similar situations. (It seems like a very casual pitch, as if they have worked together in the past, in my opinion, which…you know where I’m headed here.)

Christy Walsh — known as America’s first sports agent — coined the word in 1921 when he began to find ghostwriters to write autobiographies for sports stars, including Babe Ruth. Walsh was transparent about using ghostwriters, famously saying, “Don’t insult the intelligence of the public by claiming these men write their own stuff.”

Dictionaries define an “author” as either “a person who has written something” or “a person who starts or creates something, such as a plan or idea.” Readers assume the first. Publishers understand it’s the latter.

The revelation that Heard didn't write the op-ed was made via leaked private communications between Ms. Heard and ACLU communications strategist Robin Shulman.

Terrance Dougherty, general counsel and COO for the ACLU, was asked about a series of communications between the ACLU and Heard's team regarding writing the op-ed.

Through email, the ACLU reached out to Heard first, seeing whether she would be interested in doing a piece about how survivors "have been made less safe under the Trump administration." (“Doing” and “writing” have two separate meanings.)

So, the ACLU also had already came up with the idea and angle they wanted. Finding a celebrity’s name to slap on it was the final step before pitching it to a newspaper — one who writes on their own site that “Op-eds also aren’t meant to be a tool for public relations. For example, we won’t accept submissions from people praising the company where they work. An op-ed should serve readers, not the interests of the author,” which also is strange since Dougherty admitted, “Placing op-eds about matters such as this is the kind of thing that is the bread and butter for the ACLU.”)

Also? Amber Heard is an actress and ambassador on women’s rights at the American Civil Liberties Union. It reads under her byline.

There were also emails concerning the drafting of the op-ed, which showed Heard met with the ACLU's Jessica Weitz — ACLU’s director of artist engagement — to discuss the piece.

Following their meeting, Weitz indicated that the ACLU would write the first draft of the op-ed in question.

The draft was written by the ACLU's Robin Shulman, who then sent Heard a note: I tried to gather your fire and rage and really interesting analysis and shape that into an op-ed form...I hope it sounds true to you.

It was added as an attachment, and numerous other ACLU staffers were included in the rewrite.

Weitz also forwarded a draft to Heard with a note asking her to run it past her legal team to clear "the way I skirted around talking about your marriage" — adding, "I want to make sure nothing was said in here that puts you in jeopardy with your NDA." 

The op-ed draft went through quite a few approvals before being sent to Heard and to the National Legal Director of the ACLU, Terrence Dougherty. 

"From the ACLU's perspective, Amber is about to receive an incredible amount of press and be in the public eye," Dougherty, general counsel and COO for the ACLU said in his testimony to jurors. "So what better a time would it be than now to put out this op-ed, so that it generates significant readership about our issues.” 

This would be okay, aside from the fact that it differs from Heard’s testimony that “It wasn't the upcoming film she was hoping to promote but the serious topics she discussed in the op-ed… The publicity of the movie and the success of the movie would hopefully, in the best-case scenario...lend attention to the issues the op-ed was meant to address.”

Do people really believe Heard — or anyone not working in a newsroom — know there is a pretty strict structure for op-eds across all opinion essays in newspapers? (Just as there is for commencement speeches, which you can read about here.)

In my opinion, which may or may not be my opinion, it’s doubtful that Heard read The Washington Post’s guide to writing an opinion article on their updated (we’ll get into that soon) site, which reads:

“The format of your op-ed helps the reader understand your argument. Here is a classic structure that does this effectively:

• Statement of thesis or problem

• Three reasons this argument is right or wrong

• Conclusion

…any successful op-ed needs structure and a logical flow that makes the reader’s life easier, not harder.” 

In his deposition, Dougherty said that Heard worked directly with the individual rights organization on what the op-ed would say, where it would be published, and when it would be released.

The piece was titled, “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change.” 

Dougherty said the decision to publish the op-ed in The Washington Post was made by the ACLU. (I’m sorry, but don’t The Post’s editors decide what to publish?)

I didn’t understand why Depp wasn’t suing The Washington Post or The ALCU. It seems he could have.

So, I reached out to one of Canada’s most well-respected entertainment libel lawyers. He noted that US law differs in some respects from Canadian law.

“In Canada, whether Heard wrote the op-ed or not, if she reviewed it prior to publication and approved it being presented to the public under her name, she would be jointly liable (in theory) with anyone else who participated in the composition and publication of the op-ed (assuming it actually is actionable by Depp).”

Forget about whether either of them will ever be in any movies again or what their motives were. This is a publicity war (in my opinion, which may or may not be my opinion). 

And that leads the journalists to the public relations agency and their strategy for their clients to boost profiles, tell their side of a controversy, or express a more rounded personality than described by the media.

"Payment from publications is now in the form of publicity," says Helen Croydon of Thought Leadership PR. A former journalist and author, she now helps executives get their bylines into print with a team of journalists.

PR agencies and publicists shape perception. Perception of truth is more powerful than the truth itself. Since Depp launched his suit, the social media hashtag #Johnnydeppisinnocent received over 1 billion views, while #Amberheardisinnocent reached 44 million.

So, how commonplace is ghostwriting in modern op-eds? And why did I have such a blind spot about this practice? 

As Dan Gilmour wrote a decade ago under Opinion: The ghost-written op-ed: an unacceptable deception, “If I'd fail a journalism student for a paper written by another, why does the media give a pass to the rich and powerful?” he asks. “If we catch a student paying someone to write his or her paper for a class, or even if the actual writer does it for free, we give the student a failing grade.”

He refers to “bylined opinion pieces that are quite obviously not written by the supposed authors. Op-ed pieces that run under the bylines of famous politicians, celebrities and business people are almost never written by those people, just as they rarely author their autobiographies. They don't have time. ”

But op-eds in newspapers?

Depp v. Heard has raised larger questions about how easy it is for PR professionals to get names in opinion sections. It also highlights a lack of clear industry standards on what amounts to ghostwriting, in which public relations professionals, acting on behalf of powerful interests, write what appear to be original articles or personal essays that are then published under the bylines of individuals who didn’t write the piece at all.

Is that ever acceptable, especially in an op-ed? And if so, should readers be made aware of what’s written by PR professionals in pursuit of an agenda?

The Washington Post published the piece on Dec. 18, 2018, just three days before the DC comic superhero film Aquaman, where Heard played a sea queen named Mera, arrived in domestic theatres. Dougherty testified that his organization helped the actress produce the piece ahead of the Aquaman release on Dec. 21, 2018. 

On Dec. 11, 2018, the civil liberty organization's director of artist engagement, Jessica Weitz, sent an email describing the urgency of getting Heard's op-ed published.

"The goal is to get this out this week to capitalize on the tremendous campaign for Aquaman," she wrote, which Depp's lawyers entered into evidence.

While critics suggest that the organization was making a shameless PR grab in its arrangement with Heard, the ACLU counters that its involvement in the op-ed was merely to bring attention to the broader issue of sexual assault and the backlash survivors face when they speak out.

So why aren’t people more outraged by all of this? Readers should be — they were misled into thinking Heard wrote the opinion piece. The Washington Post, knowing it looks bad to publish an op-ed piece that was pretty much looked at and signed off by the actress, has now made journalism look worse. And the ACLU, in my opinion, which may or may not be my opinion, looks terrible too. Everyone is covering their own ass.

And since almost every contract, especially in entertainment and divorce, contain confidentiality clauses (along with NDAs), will the general public ever know the full truth of any of this?  

“Any op-ed by a prominent person, such as a politician, was probably written by a ghostwriter. At most, the person taking attribution may have contributed some talking points. So using a ghostwriter is not so much a shortcut as it is standard operating procedure,” wrote one ghostwriting company.

Hilariously, The Washington Post updated their guide to writing an op-ed article page just last week. If you don’t think the timing of this isn't fishy, then you’re probably not a journalist — at least one who does research.

What's even funnier is their headline:

Opinion:  The Washington Post guide to writing an opinion article

By Washington Post Staff

May 16, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. EDT

So, The Washing Post even has an opinion on their guide to writing an opinion article with no byline? An opinion written “By Washington Post Staff.” 

Under “Can I write in my own voice?” the paper says “Yes, please! Write how you sound, not how you think The Washington Post should sound. After you’ve written your op-ed, try reading back through and circling any words you wouldn’t use in conversation. Then replace them with different words. Or try reading the piece aloud; if you trip over a phrase or a sentence, revise.” 

In my opinion, which may or may not be my opinion, they should have added, “Or hire someone to write it for you!”

Did anyone else notice the aclu.org also updated their “What You Need to Know About ACLU Artist Ambassadors, Including Amber Heard” on May 18th? 

You should, because even the ACLU admitted — by omission — that she didn’t write the piece. 

The ACLU updated their site recently (hmm…wonder why that is. Perhaps because they kind of look terrible for not admitting Heard didn’t write the op-ed piece and that the purpose of it was to push their own agenda) with information on their public education work through their Ambassador Project. They dropped famous names and words like, “deploying” Tom Morellor to push for the passage of legislation to end solitary confinement, and “educating” people about the importance of the Census with Ike Barunholtz, and — a huge reason for my disillusionment — then ended with, “and drafting an op-ed with Amber Heard on gender-based violence to bring attention to the need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.” 

Basically, the UCLU uses words like “deploying,” or “educating” (which are definitely scripted). In saying “and drafting an op-ed with Heard” they aren’t admitting to what they actually did, which was more than drafting.

Rolling Stone reviewed an email exchange dated that same month between ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero and Heard, in which Romero gushed, “Had a great meeting with Elon. Love that guy. Love you too.” (Rolling Stone has reviewed this and other correspondence between the ACLU and Heard, which are not part of the court exhibits in Depp v. Heard.) One year later, Musk tweeted: “I am one of the top donors to @ACLU.”

In my opinion, which may or may not be my opinion, the ACLU executive wanted Heard as an “ambassador” — who essentially convinced her ex-boyfriend Elon Musk, one of the richest men in the world, to donate as well after she became an “ambassador.” 

This is how it works, people. Heard, who is sort of famous — not for her acting, it seems, but for dating Depp and later Musk, because I don’t think I've ever seen her in a movie — got her boyfriend to donate half a million dollars. In exchange, Musk gets to brag he is one of their top donors. This is exactly what the ACLU wants to happen. Because if Musk donated, then hopefully his other wealthy friends will follow.

So, there you have it. Journalism 101 2022. They didn’t write it.  It was ghostwritten by someone else, maybe for them, maybe for some organization that wants to push their agenda. You don’t know whose opinion you’re reading.

But that’s just my opinion. Maybe.