The conventional wisdom is that Twitter’s popularity stems from the fact that the microblogging service allows followers an glimpse into the personal lives of others. While I’ve maintained that the driving force behind Twitter is just the opposite (that is, Twitter is primarily driven by exhibitionism, not voyeurism); either way, people are all about immediate access to intimate details.

That said, Twitter is a natural fit with celebrities. Fans want to be closer, celebrities crave attention. But the New York Times performs the Twitter equivalent of debunking Santa’s existence by suggesting that GASP! some celebrities don’t write their own tweets! They have ghost writers churning out phoniness 140 characters at a time.

According to When Stars Twitter, a Ghost May Be Lurking, rather than allowing backstage access to the celeb’s life, Twitter is really just another vehicle for manipulation and branding. From the article:

Many online commentators are appalled at the practice of enlisting ghost Twitterers, but Joseph Nejman, a former consultant to Ms. Spears who helped conceive her Web strategy, said there was a more than a whiff of hypocrisy among critics.

“It’s O.K. to tweet for a brand,” he said, remarking how common it is for companies to have Twitter accounts, “but not O.K. for a celebrity. But the truth is, they are a brand. What they are to the public is not always what they are behind the curtain. If the manager knows that better than the star, then they should do it.”

I’m sure I speak for disheartened fans everywhere when I ask, if you can’t even believe in tweets anymore, then what can you believe in?