Bad Art Friend

[Anonymous]

Have you caught the latest meta-drama around this between Kidney Gate and Summer Brennan? This entire debacle needs to be a show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you caught the latest meta-drama around this between Kidney Gate and Summer Brennan? This entire debacle needs to be a show.

Yes. My take on it is that they are both right. It is obvious Summer Brennan relied on kidneygate posts. But it is also obvious that Summer Brennan read all of her own sources, and did her own work. I think Brennan should have acknowledged kidneygate. I think kidneygate is probably wrong about how much Brennan used, but Brennan should have been up front about her inspiration. I give her a pass because her dad is dying. But it would be good for her to acknowledge the inspiration.

[Anonymous]

I’m pro-Brennan in that. This kind of original sources research is what she does and her timeline was significantly more thoroughly than anything kidneygate has put up. I know the allegation is that she relied in the account and stole screenshots. It’s clear she did not rely on the account (it’s just obvious she read the underlying documents and she has tons of info kidneygate never posted). And it would be easy for two screen shots if the same source material to look identical.

She also recently had her own intellectual property stolen by a news site, original photos and sources she unearthed during primary source research that they lifted from her website without attribution. She is religious about citations. I just don’t think if she took info straight from kidneygate that she would neglect to cite them. She has been interested in BAF since originally published and I believe she parsed the court docs on her own.

[Anonymous]

Like this is an example of two people screenshooting an essential document and both highlighting the most important paragraph in the source. It’s just the obvious thing to highlight; it’s also what I would highlight. Kidneygate is being kind of ridiculous. What should Brennan do, post a disclosure that kidneygate also screenshot this letter (which has been all over Twitter) and also highlighted the obvious part? That would be silly. Brennan clearly read the court docs herself.

[Anonymous]

I agree the kidneygate account is wrong overall, but I also think it is pretty clear that Summer read the kidneygate account, and it would have done Summer no harm to say that folks on Twitter investigated and these are their accounts. I also found Summers post from the hospital room and the vague "someone has reached out to me" post to be distasteful and attention-seeking. I knew immediately she was talking about kidneygate when she posted that (which itself is a bit telling).

[Anonymous]

Also, those highlights are identical. Yes, you would want to highlight the same stuff, but managing to highlight pixel by pixel exactly the same, in multiple screenshots? That is unlikely. I suspect what happened is that Brennan gathered all the evidence in one place and in that pile, included some of the kidneygate screenshots, and used them in assembling her story, but didn't attribute them, probably by mistake. Brennan has since replaced the identical images with her own.

Anyhow I think overall how kidneygate handled it was wrong. Kidneygate didn't need to "blast" anyone, just point out gently that the images are the same with a single Tweet linking the identical images and asking for image attribution. I think kidneygate's response was a bit overblown as Brennan clearly did extensive research, and kidneygate seems to be implying that all of the research drew from kidneygate, which is obviously incorrect. But I also think Brennan isn't without fault here, and it would have done Brennan no harm to thank the kidneygate account and to attribute the images. Brennan was also wrong for the exploitative photo from the hospital and the vague post about kidneygate to begin with. She is going through a brutally hard time right now and should be forgiven, but that does not mean she didn't make a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Kolker wrote the piece overcompensating for the fact that he got the story tip from Dorland, so tried to give some slant to Larson, also. I don't really believe that he understood Dorland the way we do and wrote the story that way, anyway. Thinking it's more probable that he didn't read all the legal filings and also that his story may have gotten changed around a bit in editing (he suggests it did but I don't know which side it might have favored more in the original draft form). I suspect that he did maybe see things from both sides. He does after all write stories about female harassment etc. that misogynists probably wouldn't bother spending their time on, I don't personally think he's a misogynist.

When I go back and reread the original Kolker article, I'm struck by how some of the facts that initially put me off Dorland were not actually from the article, but from the original twitter takes. The idea that Dorland went back to Larson to ask her why she wasn't liking her kidney posts on Facebook? That wasn't in the article. Actually Kolker described the whole letter exchange there pretty accurately, though he didn't print all of the letters. I think he does suggest Dorland got a lawyer first, since he notes she was shopping legal opinions sometime around the Boston book fair thing, and that seems to have been incorrect.

But he does include sympathetic details about Dorland. For example, the fact that she didn't read the story right away even when she found a paid for version, which was basically out of Dorland's goodness and trust. “I did what I thought was artistically and emotionally healthy,” she said. “And also, it’s kind of what she had asked me to do.” Moreover, Kolker's quotes from Dorland are generally some of the most insightful parts of the article. On Dorland's reactions to seeing the mean girl texts and email, he wrote: "But there also was something clarifying about it. Now more than ever, she believes that 'The Kindest' was personal. 'I think she wanted me to read her story,' Dorland said, 'and for me and possibly no one else to recognize my letter.'"

I don't think Kolker quotes Larson saying anything this insightful. Maybe her comments about race, from that perspective. He also doesn't pull his punches about her plagiarism: Kolker puts the letter language Larson stole, in the early audible release, side by side with Dorland's letter, showing that of course the language was actually stolen. Like, he made the plagiarism pretty clear, without stating it outright in a way that the paper might be legally liable for. And he includes the letter excerpt where Larson says that she stole sentences word for word and felt like a good artist but a shitty friend.

There are some places where I think that if Kolker had excerpted MORE from the letters and texts he would have given a fuller, more correct portrayal. For example, when Larson was writing to audible about needing to rerecord the letter, he includes the part about her having taken some sentences from a real life letter but not her next sentence about not wanting to take those sentences out, for moral/ethical reasons. Keeping that in would have shown her admitting her mistake. Maybe it was space, or editing.

I remember the article coming out, and reading a lot of "takes" about it on twitter, and feeling like the "takes" weren't really hitting with the way I felt about the article, and then doing some reading on my own about it until I felt really powerfully in favor of Dorland. That's just me, though, and I can totally understand you guys feeling Kolker should not have written this from both perspectives at all.

Bob Kolker DM’d Dan Nguyen on Twitter to note that he actually did quote and excerpt from some of the texts and emails that readers are saying he left out — like the email to the audiobook publisher mentioned above. Sounds like Kolker is saying that he didn’t want to affirmatively take a side in the piece, but like poster above is saying definitely gave the reader lots of information and showed that Lawson certainly plagiarized.

[twitter] https://twitter.com/dancow/status/1451328454520102912?s=21[/twitter]

[Anonymous]

I wondered what was up when Brennan published her two long pieces and kidneygate didn’t publicize them as he has most other big news in the story — thought it was unlikely kidneygate missed it. Aaaagh!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wondered what was up when Brennan published her two long pieces and kidneygate didn’t publicize them as he has most other big news in the story — thought it was unlikely kidneygate missed it. Aaaagh!!!

Yes, it was obvious that Brennan was talking about kidneygate with her first vague post.

I wish Brennan would just say, I sourced some of this from kidneygate who did a great job assembling this initially, and I accidentally used the screenshots from there. It isn't a big deal to thank someone else. Nobody doubts that Brennan did a lot of work or that Brennan is going through a hard time.

[Anonymous]

Here is Dan Nguyen's Tweet re Bob Kolker. I find it interesting that after that mess of a second article from Kolker, he felt obligated to reach out to Nguyen at all. Odd.

[Anonymous]

This doesn't make Brennan look good. No matter what happened with the now-changed screenshots, the kidneygate account is not a troll.

[Anonymous]

I really do not understand why Summer Brennan cannot attribute the screenshots. It is really unfortunate, because she is typically a meticulous writer, and my bet is that this was an accident on her part, but why not just say so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wondered what was up when Brennan published her two long pieces and kidneygate didn’t publicize them as he has most other big news in the story — thought it was unlikely kidneygate missed it. Aaaagh!!!

Yes, it was obvious that Brennan was talking about kidneygate with her first vague post.

I wish Brennan would just say, I sourced some of this from kidneygate who did a great job assembling this initially, and I accidentally used the screenshots from there. It isn't a big deal to thank someone else. Nobody doubts that Brennan did a lot of work or that Brennan is going through a hard time.

I honestly think I’m this case the explanation might be that she did not source them from Kidneygate. These screenshots are floating around a bunch of places online, and she may have gotten them from elsewhere. If you see a screenshot of a public document 6 places, who do you credit?

That’s why I think kidneygate is being ridiculous. I really don’t think you can assume Brennan read that account or got the screen shots there. She could have grabbed them from another tweet that failed to say where she got them from. A friend might have screen grabbed them and texted them. She may have found them on Reddit. She clearly read through the court docs herself (and was working from a hospital) and I think screengrabbed most of those shots, if not all of them, herself. For kidneygate to argue Brennan relied on his account is silly, and I say that as someone who follows kindneygate and read the Brennan posts. She put more effort, synthesized more details, and was more thorough than anything kidneygate has done.

If anything, this incident is clarifying as to why what Larson did was much worse and why Dawn’s restraint in response laudable. Larson stole Dawn’s words from a private work and sought to profit off of them. Brennan maybe used an unaccredited screenshot if a public document that has been widely circulated, and which she also identified in the source. Extremely different situation!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wondered what was up when Brennan published her two long pieces and kidneygate didn’t publicize them as he has most other big news in the story — thought it was unlikely kidneygate missed it. Aaaagh!!!

Yes, it was obvious that Brennan was talking about kidneygate with her first vague post.

I wish Brennan would just say, I sourced some of this from kidneygate who did a great job assembling this initially, and I accidentally used the screenshots from there. It isn't a big deal to thank someone else. Nobody doubts that Brennan did a lot of work or that Brennan is going through a hard time.

I honestly think I’m this case the explanation might be that she did not source them from Kidneygate. These screenshots are floating around a bunch of places online, and she may have gotten them from elsewhere. If you see a screenshot of a public document 6 places, who do you credit?

That’s why I think kidneygate is being ridiculous. I really don’t think you can assume Brennan read that account or got the screen shots there. She could have grabbed them from another tweet that failed to say where she got them from. A friend might have screen grabbed them and texted them. She may have found them on Reddit. She clearly read through the court docs herself (and was working from a hospital) and I think screengrabbed most of those shots, if not all of them, herself. For kidneygate to argue Brennan relied on his account is silly, and I say that as someone who follows kindneygate and read the Brennan posts. She put more effort, synthesized more details, and was more thorough than anything kidneygate has done.

If anything, this incident is clarifying as to why what Larson did was much worse and why Dawn’s restraint in response laudable. Larson stole Dawn’s words from a private work and sought to profit off of them. Brennan maybe used an unaccredited screenshot if a public document that has been widely circulated, and which she also identified in the source. Extremely different situation!

Oh, it is extremely different, no argument there. And I also think kidneygate is overreacting. But I think it is highly unlikely that a reporter as meticulous as Summer Brennan didn't read one of the most widely Tweeted accounts laying out all the information, and I also think she should have clarified that the images weren't her own creation. Maybe she got them from Reddit or some other place and didn't realize they were from kidneygate, but in the context of her article, it comes off as though she found and highlighted the relevant portions, and that she created the screenshots, and she didn't. It would not harm her to even say, I found these online, source unknown.

I also agree that Brennan's account is better and more thorough than what anyone else did, but she did obviously stand on the shoulders of others when doing it by virtue of the fact that she used uncredited images pointing out the salient text.

[Anonymous]

At a minimum, Brennan should stop posts like this. It isn't making her look good.