Mebutter

Beautiful description of the lunch! I literally didn't eat for 24 hours after visiting Lumiere. I, too, love the first paragraph. It does all sounds a bit silly - going on about anonymity and then showing up with name tags - (this is the sort of irony that could feed a couple dozen "compromised critic" threads) but I have to point out the name tags were necessary. The name tags served as our tickets (a reason I reminded Mamster to bring his along) into all AFJ events. Though this was clearly not a "reviewing" lunch, I don't think there were any Vancouver critics amongst us. In fact, the Vancouver Sun critic never showed up for any of the AFJ events in or out of restaurants. Didn't want to be seen associating, etc., etc., etc. I certainly hope we see Mamster at future AFJ events. His comments were much appreciated. Perhaps at the 2003 conference in Boston... Would love to see you, too, Mr. Shaw (and any other food journalist) Bill Daley

As a reviewer I think bylines promote accountability and give the readers/restaurateurs someone to vent at. You may not know what I look like but you can call up and yell at me all you want. What's more, I'll direct you to my editor if you're still not happy. I know we've gone round and round on anonymity before but I still say its valuable - especially if you are interested in giving the readers a realistic bite of the restaurant under review. Otherwise, you're telling the readers what you - Mr. or Ms. Star Reviewer - experienced. Not for me. Yes there are slip-ups and you're recognized or they figure it out. Whatever. But that doesn't outweigh the good that comes from being anonymous. SPJ guidelines are good for the journalist in general - they don't address the specific needs of the restaurant critic. I think the AFJ guidelines for critics do a much better job at that. (Full disclosure: I helped write them.) Bill Daley

Don't forget Courtney Febbroriello's "Wife of the Chef" due out in January.

Amen, amen, amen, amen!!!!!!!!!!! As for the hot dog story, two of my colleagues - born and bred on Blackies - are shaking their heads over the article's description of this Cheshire legend. One of them, our humor writer, isn't smiling. He even used the f-word in questioning the accuracy of the Blackies' paragraphs - particularly the deepfried component and the kitchen layout. "Tell them I'm canceling my subscription,'' the writer has just called out.

That was interesting - and exhausting. Makes you wish everyone had spellcheck or a dictionary. Thanks Steve, you made good points. And I liked Shaw's comments about chef/owners calling the critic and talking through a bad review. That's far more productive for both sides than name calling and fingerpointing.

You are too much, Steve!!! I'm glad the New York Times wrote about hot dogs - hot dogs always get a big reaction from our readers even without Mr. Shaw's fine prose - but I will admit reading about hot dogs or other prole fare in the NYT is sort of like seeing news from Sheepshead Bay or Flatbush on Page 1. Is it just me or has the Times tried to adopt a grittier, streetwise approach toward some aspects of food lately? I've kind of liked it. And, speaking of changes and a favorite bete noir of eGulleters, what's with Amanda Hesser writing "cheap eats"? (I've been on vacation a couple of weeks so forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere.) As a reviewer who cherishes anonymity, and thinks it's vital for a fair review, I've got to wonder about the wisdom of sending to a restaurant, even a cheap one, someone whose face appear regularly in the magazine read by hundreds of thousands of people. Yes, Amanda is stylized by the guy who does the Bendel's ads, but still. Is the NYT naive enough to believe the owners and staff of these cheap eateries don't read the newspaper or the magazine? Or, is the assumption that these folks - outer burough people to be sure - are devotees all of the News, the Post or Newsday?

You may need to be persistent to obtain Food Arts. I'm a writer and a reviewer and I still had trouble getting it. I sent in numerous subscription cards and even called the publishing company - not the easiest number to get. I even sent in a check for the "civilian" subscription rate. Finally, something clicked and I now get Food Arts - two copies of each every time.

Barbara Tropp's "The Modern Art of Chinese Cooking." She revived my faith in Chinese food...

Hi Jeanne, Glad to hear you're doing a q & a here. One question I'm sure you get asked a lot, and it's worth asking again here, is what advice do you have to fledgling writers and freelancers who might want to take a crack at the Post's food section. What type of stories do you look for? Do you like "voice"? Turn-ons? Turn-offs? Bill Daley

It would depend, I think, on how thick the wall is between advertising and editorial. If the editor-in-chief writes a review without thought of possible consequences - ie. dropped ads - that's okay. (Although I'd wonder about how he or she would handle anonymity.)

Someone once told me that books personally inscribed is worth less than a book with a general "Hi there" and the author's name. Apparently, a general inscription means you can pass yourself off as a pal of the author! That said, I do cherish the signed books my family has gathered over the years...for me, it's sort of a record of an encounter, no matter how brief. At my newspaper, cookbooks are either stacked up under the food editor's desk; passed out to those with an interest in reading/reviewing; stored in a conference room for possible future reference; or sold at a semi-annual book sale at ridiculously discounted prices to aid charity. A bit of a pain, yes, but I'd rather have the book than those silly press kits with a photo of the cover and 4 sample recipes.

Aw, I just think she/he is having a little fun. It's certainly a more interesting intro than the "I've been a writer for 6 years and been eating for 25." And, who knows? Eating out a lot may change this critic's mind. After 5 years I've found I really do like fried calamari after all but wince whenever I see a frisbee-sized portobello mushroom slide toward me. (I still eat them - and would never say "I don't like them" because I know my readers eat them.)

AJay writes: "I think you may have convinced me that after several anonymous visits, perhaps a critic should announce him/herself and allow the kitchen to pull out all of the stops." This is a very bad idea. Everyone staffer in the place would immediately begin memorizing the critic's features and description. I went to a restaurant once for a wedding anniversary party - I wasn't "working." Unbeknownst to me, the couple were great buddies with the restaurant owner. I kept thinking the lady simply thought I was sexy because of the way she kept staring at me. Then I learned who she was and realized she knew who I was. I couldn't get out of there fast enough. Even if the revealed critic can eat dinner and be stared at at the same time, you've got to think of the ramifications. What happens when the staff moves on? They'll certainly tell their new co-workers and old friends (that happened to me when one smart waitress figured out who I was after the review was published. She told a friend at another restaurant who told the owner ...and you know how that ended up.) One critic I know stopped wearing red glasses because that got around and that's how people began to id her. Also chefs and owners will get calls from their friends asking for the i.d. Ajay also says: " I suppose that I may be tempted to ask for some of the dishes said critic encounters, but I would be unlikely to do so in the great majority of my restaurant experiences." You can and should ask for dishes served to a reviewer. Lots of my readers clip out the reviews and carry them into the restaurant. They point to it and say that's what they want. And woe to the restaurant that has taken some prized morsel off the menu. I went to the Ranch House on a trip to California a few years ago. I never said who I was but mentioned I had learned about them from the Saveur cover story. The kitchen sent out a complimentary sample of the spring pea soup (prominently featured in the story) for our table to sample. CLearly, there had been a lot of requests for it because of that story. So, go ahead. After all, it's your money and the restaurant should be able to comply.

Macrosan says: "In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time. Then a regular follower of that reviewer, one who has generally found he empathises with that reviewer, can have some level of expectation that he may enjoy a meal at a recommended establishment. And that's the most you can hope for." This is absolutely right-on. Hopefully a restaurant will respond/improve based on a review... Steve KLC writes: "However, I'd go one better--you'd do your subjects a disservice, too--the small chef-owned restaurateur struggling to compete with the larger chain operations, the ethnic restaurant just doing what they known how to do with little comprehension of English, the new restaurant opened by novices, the sous chef just out on his own--they are entitled to "feel" like they are going to get a fair shake regardless of whether they shell out the bucks for a connected publicist or have contacts in the media. That doing good interesting work across many culinary disciplines and price points can be enough." I try to take this all into account when i review. I look at what the restaurant is trying to deliver, price, ambiance, food quality, service. Naturally, the cheaper and more casual the restaurant the more slack they get. I also love it when a restaurant dares to experiment, break out of the mold. I'm so tired of tiramisu and portobello mushrooms. As for talking about the Washington Post Group, Steve, don't apologize. It's not like I'm on the payroll or vacation with these folks. Just keep saying what you want to say. (Who knows, they may be out there listening.) As for Shaw recusing himself, I'd need to know more before venturing an opinion. If they were bosom buddies, godfathers to each others kids (or dogs), I'd probably have more problems than an acquaintanceship. That acquaintanceship should, in my opinion, be disclosed in any review so the reader can weigh it or ignore it as they will. Steve P writes: "Mebutter-You are still are saying that having a conflict is inherently bad. But that flies in the face of my experience that biased information IS BETTER than non-biased information. " Well, I can't argue with someone's personal experience. For me, though, it's been my experience that "biased information" - or the perception of such - can be trouble. That is one slippery slope I try to avoid. Ajay writes: "But a restaurant reviewed by a legitimate reviewer is usually visited often enough to give an anonymous critic a sense of a restaurant's ragne of consistency. I believe that in the case of most publications this is three to four visits. I also assume that more visits are used if they are deemed necessary. Profesisonal critics, please correct me if i am laboring under mistaken assumptions." Yes and no. The bigger the paper, and the bigger the budget,the more visits you can expect. Most of the big shots have a fulltime critic or critics who do nothing but. The smaller the paper, the smaller the budget, and, usually, the fewer number of visits. The critic often has other duties or jobs or is freelance. The association of food journalists guidelines for critics (www.afjonline.com) recommends at least two visits but adds that three is better. At my newspaper, the policy has been two visits (or eight appetizers, eight entrees and eight desserts) per restaurant. Sometimes I'll go a third time if I'm still not sure...Frankly, I'd like to go more often but it's a budget and time thing.

Steve P writes: "I keep asking the people who disagree with me the same question and it doesn't get answered. If a restaurant reviewer had a relationship with a chef, and/or was a known personality around town so that restaurant personel recognized them, how would that in and of itself taint their review and opinion." Let me try to take a stab at it once again. It's like a man who is asked by his lover to evaluate the lover's technique. Now, if the lover is a 4-star in every sense imaginable, it's probably very easy to rely. But if the lover has some weak spots, is deficient in one or more techniques, the challenge grows. Will the man be brutally honest or will he perhaps couch his words or gloss over faults? If the man wants the lover to be around in the morning, he'll likely choose the second route. So it is when you ask a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant where he has a relationship with the chef or owner. It would take a bigger person than me, or most others, to be totally honest. The friendship/relationship poses a challenge to the critic's ability to work unhindered. As for being known, we can argue back and forth about whether the restaurant can truly "cover up" its sins. But the restaurant sure going to try - from cooking two versions of the reviewer's order and making sure the best goes out, to devoting one server exclusively to that table, to giving the critic a great seat. There is also an emotional toll, I suspect, to being known and catered to. It's like Katharine Hepburn said about fame - it can make you crazy if you're not careful. Over time, over years of being wined and dined and fawned over, your expectations surely change and surely so does your professional judgement. Everyone I talk to at my office about this developing thread said the same thing: You have to be vigilant, you have to stay aware of what you're doing or else the other stuff - the freebies, the junkets, the attitude - can slowly creep over you and render the readers a disservice. SteveP also said, "And the people who support those rules act as if the integrity that someone acquires from following these prescribed set of rules insures anyone of anything." I certainly don't think that and hope I haven't given that impression. I can't help but recall the original subject of this thread was "compromised" reviewers. So, that's what I've been focusing on. Certainly, palate, training, writing ability, perception all play into a review and should be taken into consideration in assessing a reviewers craft. What's most important depends on the beholder, I guess. I'd take a humble house soundly constructed over a designer showcase built on a flawed foundation. For me, that foundation is journalistic ethics. And, I don't think circulation size should affect ethics, either. P.S. Bravo to Ajay for saying: "What I'm interested in as a connsumer of reviews is what kind of experience they are likely to provide ME." That's what it's all about, relating to all the Me's out there. P.P.S. I wish I could figure out how the quote function works.

I also wanted to comment on this observation from Steve KLC: "For a newspaper critic, I'd say tenure with pre-agreed term limits is perhaps the best way to go. Specifically that you should not ever be both a restaurant critic and a food writer simultaneously. You can be both, of course, in all sorts of new media opportunities, but then you are not the mainstream media's main voice on restaurant criticism in your town." I agree with him in principle, but I'm afraid many newspapers are too cheap to hire two different people.When the Association of Food Journalists surveyed restaurant reviewers a few years ago, we found many critics also worked as their paper's food editor or as a food writer. I'm afraid I'm one of them. Fortunately, my food editor can take most of the restaurant stories where face-to-face is needed. Like most of us with two hats, I try to minimize my visibility and exposure to restaurant chefs/owners. I work on stories where I can call on out-of-state chefs or chefs I knew from the days before I was a critic. With everyone else, I restrict myself to phoners and pick people who work at places previously reviewed that I'm not planning to visit. It's not the neatest arrangement - telling an editor you can't do a story is never pleasant - but that's what I have to do. Other food critics/writers are in the same boat. All of us are trying to find a solution that is ethical and works for our situation. As for the tenure issue, that's interesting. (I'll skirt the Phyllis subtext.) When should a reviewer call it quits? Hmmm. I sense another topic thread starting to spin....

Thank you, Steve and Mamster, for your comments about reviewers and reviewing. Like you, Mamster, I wonder how long I'll remain a reviewer because of the inherent isolation of the job. I long for the days when I can be trotted out to Steve's "pasture" and be "nice" and interview any chef face-to-face without giving it a thought...(Right now, I'm restricted to chefs who are friends from the old days and won't be reviewed or phoners with carefully selected "targets" - no one I'm planning to review anytime soon.) Mamster wrote: "The sad thing about food writing, maybe the sad thing about all journalism, is that sometimes you have to almost literally bite the hand that feeds you." That applies, I think, whether you are a reviewer or a food journalist because there are, still, basic journalistic tenets you should follow. Steve wrote: "There are lots of available food writers, freelance or otherwise, on board in every city and publication and what many of them do can hardly be called journalism, whatever integrity and professional ethics "journalism" implies anymore. I have no problem with this--and encourage perpsective, close relationships, junkets, free meals, whatever for the typical, average food writer. It's going on, publicists aren't going to stop taking food writers to their clients restaurants, nor should they. It's the oil of the food world. Just know what you're writing about and give credit where credit is due." I'm as cynical as the next guy, maybe more so, and there are species of journalists out there who are journalists only in name. But I don't think we can surrender to the blandishments out there, even if they help p.r. people keep their job, because then you're beholden to the wrong people. Food writer, reviewer, journalist - whatever you are - you have to write for your readers and not your sources. Otherwise they own you - and there's nothing worse than that, I think. Except maybe not writing at all... God, I'm re-reading this and sound so bloody noble. Actually, I'm not. It's just that I've been a working reporter 20 years and I've always bristled at the public perception that we're all on the take, corrupt, lazy, immoral, what have you. I always tell people I'm paid too little to go bad.

Oh, I see what I did. Winifred instead of WILFRID. That's the second time I've screwed up your name and I do apologize. I must be having a stroke...

I'm sorry, was I misinterpreting this??? "Waffle, waffle...Applying it to food critics? I think it is fully accepted that book, movie, music (etc) writers are going to have contacts, and even friends, in their chosen field. They also - where it's relevant - get the bests seats, the best view, and all kinds of other special treatments. Why should a food or wine writer be any different?" If so, no offense meant.

Well, I hope I've been sticking to my guns in my postings on this topic.... Steve Plotnicki makes some interesting points. Anonymity and a buffer on personal relationships helps a reviewer be more objective in assessing a restaurant. Objectivity is important for the reader who trusts the reviewer is writing about what he or her experienced and is not airing his or her affection for a restaurant's owner or chef. I don't think anonymity or a buffer on personal relationships hinders a review. A reviewer, naturally, does what research he or she can about the restaurant, chef, cuisine style before writing the piece. You don't need friendship to gain special insight. That said, a reviewer should disclose friendships/prior relations etc. in the piece. As for word of mouth, Steve's right. But a good review can unfairly pump up a bad restaurant for weeks or months. Word of mouth moves fast, but not as fast as 298,000 copies. Like Steve, I want a restaurant to give me their best and perform at their maximum level. But I want them to do that for everyone, not just for me. I think its important for a critic to experience the restaurant as any other diner would - that's the only way you can truly convey the experience of that place. With dinners here in Connecticut routinely hitting $150 to $200 for two - if you're lucky - going out to dinner is becoming more investment than fun. The readers have to trust you are giving them the straight dope. As for Winifred's assertion that since music and other critics get the best of everything that should apply, too, to food and wine writers - that's OK (I say that very reluctantly) if you are a food or wine writer. It's absolutely not ok if you are a restaurant reviewer. (I'm speaking here from a U.S. newspaper perspective and realize magazines have different standards.) And if you're lonely or feel cut off, that's part of the reviewing business. Cope or do something else. Macrosan notes a restaurant can get it wrong one night or the reviewer can. Very true. That's why it's wise to pay multiple visits to a restaurant, on weekends and weeknights, to see how the place manages. If need be, you make "extra" visits until you are satisfied you are pretty much familiar with the restaurant's tempo and style. The topic of this thread is "compromised critics" but it really is a question of ethics. You've got to live with what you're comfortable with.

Amen.

I don't think its impossible, Platonically or otherwise It's all about being professional. It's not wanting to be part of the "in" crowd but assisting your readers by providing them with a service they can use. It's also about agreeing on what is or isn't permissable. The idea of restaurant reviewing as a respectable subgenre of journalism is still so relatively new that I think the ethical guideposts aren't as evident, or solid, as in other beats. Hence the AFJ guidelines I mentioned earlier. Please don't get the impression that I spend the entire day stewing about restaurant reviewing ethics, but if the opportunity presents itself to lobby for professional behavior I do it.

Many thanks for your comments, Wilifrid. Restaurant critics are held to a higher standard, I think, because everyone eats and everyone is a critic. It's easier for a restaurateur who has just been burned to blame it on the critic than to take a good, hard look at his/her operation. I've encountered a number who, if they had put the energy they used to complain into their restaurant, would have received better ratings. And in pointing a finger at the critic, they use everything they can - even accusing the critic of engaging in a conspiracy with rival restaurateurs! Too many people think the fix is in (and, sadly, sometimes it is. I just heard an area reviewer is going to a 'press party' for a restaurant before she's even filed a review) so I think it's best to keep your nose super-clean. Reviews also generate such passion. I was never threatened - not even when I covered a Mafia trial - until I became a restaurant reviewer. Also, I think editors, particularly newspaper editors, harbor an inherent distrust of anyone eating and drinking on their dime. A lot of those crusty, old hard news types can barely be forced to acknowledge food sections have merit, let alone admit food sections and food stories are among the most popular with readers. As for p.r. pampering, it does happen. But you should never get comfortable with it or learn to accept it. You owe it to your readers, and the folks paying your paycheck, to call it straight.

The "known" reviewer does get a better experience - better meals, more elbow room, greater courtesy. And the "look around at the other tables" strategy doesn't always work. In that San Francisco Magazine story about Michael Bauer (a story which did not present the Bauer I know at all) one of the maitre d's said they make sure to give great service to all the tables within eyeshot of the critic. But I disagree totally on the call for a Michelin (or even Zagat) system of nameless, faceless reviewers. I have to or I'd lose my job. There's an in-between: A reviewer who works anonymously yet is known through his or her writing. I can't tell you how important it is for readers to 'connect' with a reviewer. They get to know his or her likes, dislikes and passions. I don't mind it at all when someone writes in and tells me they know if I hate something they'll love it and viceversa. That means they have a sense of where I'm coming from and are adjusting their expectations accordingily. The big issue for me is whether or not the reviewer has the discipline to stand apart, to remain "hidden." Certainly the seduction of being pals with big name chefs is there, no one is better at hospitality with a hidden price tag than food people - and you'll always find a colleague who has slipped down the slippery slope trying to entice you to join them. That's why I never accept an invitation to a party from food friends unless I know whose invited - and I don't socialize at all with people who don't recognize my concerns and commitment to remaining anonymous. So far, it's worked for me. There's no photo of me in the wrong hands that I know of. THat's quite a marked difference from my predecessor, whose mug was plastered on the back walls of the best restaurants in town. As for the question of being disspassionate, that is an issue. Journalists are taught to be evenhanded, disspassionate, fair. (How many actually keep true to that lesson can be debated later.) When I covered the cop beat I told people I'd plaster my mother on page 1 if she screwed up. YOu have to go at it with that attitude. You have to try and evaluate everyone the same, no matter if you are acquainted with them or like them. And that means writing a negative review if you have to. Even if the chef never talks to you again. That's the price of being a journalist.

P.S. More and more newspapers are rejecting freebies for their travel writers. (Whether that policy applies to the freelancers they hire is another story.)