Maybe the good one was a sports writer. I've read some interesting articles by a food writer who was a sports writer. Either you know your stuff or you don't. How you learned is immaterial. I think it helps to know how to cook and it helps to understand how a restaurant works to offer great criticism, but it may not be essential as you're talking to people who want to know about the dining experience, not learn how to cook or operate a restaurant.
Maybe 2 critics. The Times does this in the New Jersey section of the Sunday edition and it works well. I like ones writing more than the other and tend to take that persons opinions more seriously (curious is that the one I don't care for as much is a CIA grad, the one I do like was probably the sports reporter). Our local paper may have as many as 6 critics doing the reviews. the inconsistency drives most of us in this region bonkers.
I could see how inconsistent reviews could drive a restaurant crazy, but life is inconsistent and there's a safety factor in having multiple critics with different points of view. At least a restaurant is not tempted to aim at pleasing a single all too powerful critic's taste. A winemaker in France spoke about a new tendency among winemakers to "Parkerize" their wine. His own wine scored well by Parker and his bank was happy. Maybe with multiple reviewers the public will begin to understand that there's a lot of subjectivity in all this.