 
|
 |
|
That Charlie LeDuff piece in the NYT last week on kayaking the L.A. River was too familiar for Blake Gumprecht, author of the 1999 book The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. He complained to the Times that the story was based on his research without attribution. The result was an editor's note in Monday's paper.
An article last Monday about the Los Angeles River recounted its history and described the reporter's trip downriver in a kayak. In research for the article, the reporter consulted a 1999 book by Blake Gumprecht, "The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth." Several passages relating facts and lore about the river distilled passages from the book. Although the facts in those passages were confirmed independently—through other sources or the reporter's first hand observation—the article should have acknowledged the significant contribution of Mr. Gumprecht's research.
Slate's Jack Shafer reviews the episode in a piece posted yesterday. I agree with him that some of the comparisons Gumprecht complains about would be fine to me. For instance, the author finds these two passages suspicious:
LeDuff: "The river is crossed by more than 100 bridges."
Book: "Millions of people cross it every day on more than a hundred bridges."
Looks like a basic fact discernible from any map to me, and the writing isn't that similar. So no one else should describe the river as crossed by 100 bridges because Gumprecht did? Some passages are closer, but I think if LeDuff had acknowledged consulting the book (and other published sources) the author would have nothing to complain about. It's research, not plagiarism. Keith Kelly in the New York Post today makes the stretch that it could cast a shadow over LeDuff's own book, a compilation of his New York Times pieces due out in January.
edited 10:45 a.m.
i think leduff was well within his rights to write the story as he did. there are similarities to the book for sure, but none of the facts were exclusive to the book. although it's fairly clear leduff read the book i think he covered his tracks enough not to be required to cite it. ... as a practical matter, just to be safe, it would have been smart for him to cite the book at least once in the reporting -- or to cover it up better. e.g. say that the river was crossed by "more than 90" bridges rather than the 100 that's stated in the book. or not use the exact phrase "canoga park high bleachers" and instead refer just the high school proximity as the starting point.
Posted by: redhawk at January 4, 2004 03:20 PM
of LA Observed
Kevin, I was with you at first -- i.e., that a writer can talk about the L.A. River without acknowledging that any or some previous writer reported on basic facts of the river -- but then I read the Slate piece and learned that: Many of LeDuff's facts about the river came from The Introduction to (and the opening pages of) the book. Different story entirely. Sounds like LeDuff liked the facts/factoids/anecdotes that the author used to sell readers on the book, and thus lifted many of them. This is different than basing the article on facts gleaned from throughout the book -- or facts from multiple sources or common knowledge that also happened to be in the book.
Posted by: The Raven at December 17, 2003 03:25 PM