The travel writer who wrote part of the Lonely Planet Guide to Colombia has
admitted that he never visited the country.
Thomas Kohnstamm says that he was in San Francisco at the time. “They didn’t
pay me enough to go to Colombia,” he told The Australian Herald
Sun. So he “got the information from a chick I was dating who was an
intern in the Colombian Consulate”.
In an interview for his own book - Do Travel Writers Go to Hell? -
Kohnstamm appears to admit that he used other authors’ information, and
accepted gifts in contravention of the policies of Lonely Planet, which is
now partly owned by the BBC.
The writer’s exposé of the guidebook business portrays a morally ambiguous
view of the job, which Kohnstamm claims is “not all about beautiful sunsets
and fancy cocktails with paper umbrellas” – although casual sex and exotic
locations feature prominently.
The claims have sparked outrage across the travel industry, not least among
his former employers at Lonely Planet, for whom he contributed to more than
a dozen titles, including books on Brazil, Colombia, the Caribbean and South
America.
Speaking from his home in Seattle, Kohnstamm told The Times that his
comments had been misrepresented. He denied inventing content. However, he
stood by his original argument that overstretched and underfunded freelance
travel writers, whose recommendations are relied upon by generations of
travellers, cannot possibly visit every budget hotel and jungle outpost they
are asked to.
He said: “This is not an issue of mass plagiarism, or invented content. The
point is that, with the massive amount of territory you are given to cover,
it’s nearly impossible for a human being to see all that in person.”
In some cases, Kohnstamm confirmed, he was forced to rely upon secondhand
information, local contacts and the internet when reviewing some hotels,
bars and towns, although he declined to say how frequently. “I always worked
with the best of intentions, but I always came home feeling somewhat guilty
that I should have visited more places in person. However, there are time
and financial constraints that make that very difficult.”
Kohnstamm, 32, and Lonely Planet agree that there was never any expectation
that he would travel to Colombia, as he was only commissioned to do
desk-based research on the history, culture and food and drink. Two other
contributors did visit the country.
Tom Hall, of Lonely Planet , which sells six million guides a year,
said that once writers have been accepted into the 350-strong pool of
authors they are given a lump sum and left to arrange their own travel.
Research usually lasts from four to eight weeks. Lonely Planet is reviewing
Kohnstamm’s contributions but has so far found nothing inaccurate.
Paul Bloomfield, an editor at Wanderlust magazine and a former editor
at Lonely Planet, said: “Thomas Kohnstamm’s seedy revelations say more about
his own ethics than those of Lonely Planet or guidebook publishers in
general.”
Just back from the Ukraine with Lonely Planet Eastern Europe Guide dated 2007 all info practically useless and at least 4 years out of date
Michael McCormac, Dublin,
Once again the old adage comes to life: you can't believe everything that you read. Now there's a guy who claims to have written for Lonely Planet while behind bars: http://fastfictions.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/for-ten-years-i’ve-been-writing-for-lonely-planet-while-behind-prison-bars/
Ken, Toronto, Canada
Try paying travel writers a living wage and you will get excellent information. Travelers deserve material from well paid writers. Publishers, you get what you pay for. Travelers, check what the publisher pays its writers before you believe what you read.
Been there, done that
Carol, Chicago,
I travelled around the world for over a year and traded lonely planet books wherever I went - they were great for me and helped to make our trip fantastic. You can't expect every single hotel and "spot" to be exactly the same as in the book, things change all the time, and you are supposed to use the books as guides, not gospels. People above who say never to use lonely planet because they are always wrong are misleading and unfair. I used them in 16 countries in my trip and helped me to plan my trip en route, and get the most out of the places I visited.
This article is pretty pointless, as it says the journalist was employed for desk work and for writing the history/culture etc. sections and so didn't have to have been to the country - other authors of the book have been to the country and many people use it.
I love Lonely Planet books and will continue to use them for my future travels, they are a fantastic source of information.
Sam, Birmingham,
I never trust travel guides, no matter who they're written by. Without fail, every one will always describe its inhabitants as 'very friendly'. I'm looking forward to the day when I see a more honest description.
Joe Carmeddy, Bradford,
Apparently this writer only wrote the History section of Columbia, not the rest. He was a contributing author, not the author. Still, you'd think they could find people who actually live in the destinations to write about them.
I buy guidebooks to provide a nice overview and suggestions of things to do and places to stay. The Internet is fine but you can't take it in your backpack, write on it, stick tickets and stuff in it and read it on the train. You also have to wade through reams of rubbish online before finding what you want.
Jim, Edinburgh, Scotland
Doesn't surprise me one bit. I relied solely on Lonely Planet during my trip to Brazil, and its advice was so far off base that I wondered if the author were smoking crack. Upon my arrival in Sao Paulo, to my horror I learned that what it had termed "a nice little spot" was the most appalling dump in a slum. And things only went downhill. Travelers deserve better; try Rough Guide, Frommer's, anything but LP.
Deke Baxter, Austin, Texas
Don't worry - Web 2.0 means that too-smart-by-far operations like Lonely Planet will be replaced by honest comments by people who have visited the place/activity they're writing about. Imagine a global wiki - Planetpedia?
Terry White, Tokyo, Japan
I rememeber arriving in Guyana a few years ago to find that LP contained some major inaccuracies, including price guides out by a mulitple of 3/4 times. I asked their local tourism bureau why this could be as it was a 'revised and updated edition' and they said they hadn't seen anyone from LP in 5 years. Not surprised at all; LP comes across as hugely smug and had it coming.
anita, lancaster, uk
First, I would recommend yesterday's piece - Guidebooks? Don't believe all you read - by Steve Keenan. It highlights the problems with guides, not least of which is that they're often out of date before they're printed.
As someone has suggested, up-to-date info can always be found on the internet. But that still doesn't guarantee that the author isn't doing a Kohnstamm, and many travel articles which appear there and in the press appear to be little more than tired extracts cut and pasted from elsewhere.
A while ago, a standard travel item about Peru appeared in the Sunday Times, accompanied by the inevitable picture of Machu Picchu. The photo was, however, back-to-front, which prompted me to write in suggesting, tongue-in-cheek, that the article had been prepared by a couple of blokes with a travel brochure and a box of slides in a garage somewhere in Romford. There was no reaction, but this latest story leads me to believe I may well have been right!
Graham, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
The idea that anyone could possibly see enough of a country in 4 to 8 weeks to write a 150,000 word travel guide is absurd. I spent four months in India in 1994 and wrote a letter to them afterwards containing pretty much everything I had seen/done. That came to only 20,000 words. As can be seen from the back of every copy, hundreds of others do the same as I did yearly. At the end of the day, a travel guide is only as good as its editors.
Also, a guide should only be used to to provide an overview and ideas for your travel - not as a bible. I use mine to give me a summary of what a country has to offer, a source of shortcuts to help me get out of difficulty and, most often, for time saving A to B transport advice.
As far as those two points are concerned, Lonely Planet is still the best in the business.
Phil, London,
Well I look forward to his travel book - Mars for Armchair Travellers.
You have to admit it, Thomas Kohnstamm is a genius of sorts.
Stephen Pain, odense, denmark
Buying a lonely planet guide book is for the most part a complete waste of money.
I have travelled to dozens of countries and I found all the necesary and best information through the internet or going from hotel to hotel to get the best price.
Tthe 40 to 60 dollars that one spends on a lonely planet guide books does not save you money nor does it get you to the best value hotel or restaurant.
Most of the hotels that lonely planet recommends raise their prices once the demand for their hotel goes up or they find out that their hotel has become famous.
Do not waste your time or money on lonely planet guide books; however, the lonely planet thorn tree forum and other travel forums where experienced travellers give everyone up to date information on best bargain hotels, restaurants, etc., ...are the best source of information for serious travellers as well as casual travellers.
internet will save you money , not lonely planet guide books.
Alexander, las vegas,
I am writing a guide to hidden pousadas (fabulous, good value guesthouses and inns) in Brazil, all of which I have visited personally. If I find they are quoted in the Lonely Planet, they don´t make it in there. Obviously no travel writer can possibly be expected to visit all these places on what they are paid, so they just repeat what previous people have said. Prices quoted in the Brazil guide are so "off" as to be totally unusable, even as a guide.
Alison, Rio de Janeiro,
Lonely Planet turns down good writers willing to do the footwork in remote places, they are elitist and silly about who gets to write for them.
Valerie Sartor, Beijing, China