Lonely Planet's Take on Ireland

Its been all over the media - a former writer for the Lonely Planet brand of guidebooks has blown the whistle on them. Thomas Kohnstamm claimed that he had written parts of a Colombia guide without ever having been to Colombia. Sounds scandalous. But as he apparently only wrote on the history of Colombia I understand that Lonely Planet's budget did not allow to employ the services of Dr. Emmett Brown. What I do not understand, however, is the sloppiness with which the company's new Irish guides have been "updated".

Being a firm believer in not judging books by their covers, I also tend to look at the factual information more than at the used ticket stubs of the writer. But in the case of Lonely Planet Dublin and Lonely Planet Ireland some information simply did not reflect reality.

Take the polar bears in Dublin Zoo as an example - yes, they were listless most of the time and didn't put on a show (apart from the memorable day when one of them killed an all too confident heron settling down in the enclosure). That's the reason why they were sent off to Budapest years ago. Only the 2008 Dublin guide still deplores their depressed appearance. But maybe the researcher was simply myopic and took the Siberian tigers in the enclosure for polar bears. Easy mistake, both being big and deadly.

With the controversy stirred up by Thomas Kohnstamm, such mistakes may be seen in a more sinister light, though. Does the allocated budget really allow for in-depth reviews every other year? Or are writers forced to skim over old information quickly, hoping to spot most mistakes in one go? Or do writers cash the cheque and stop bothering too much - who’ll notice after all?

This is not the blame game, so I'll not start to point accusing fingers. But I’d like point you to my latest reviews of guidebooks from Lonely Planet:

• Review of Lonely Planet Dublin
• Review of Lonely Planet Ireland