russ parsons

there will always be a market for someone to tell the mediocre that they're just fine.

The coverage of Bauer in the San Francisco magazine article was not in any way fair or accurate. In fact, I had a quite pointed letter to the editor published in the next issue of that magazine, calling attention to some of the errors. Michael is an old friend, but if the article had been fair, the journalist in me would have said "good shot, move on," or something of the sort. But any article that predicates ethical purity on the kind of stage-dressing anonymity she seems to require is absurd on the face of it. It has been my good fortune to eat with almost every important newspaper restaurant critic of the last 20 years and not once have any of them been in disguise. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, just that it's certainly not the rule. As far as John's praise, I appreciate it but it is misplaced. Being a section editor gives you the power to throw away press releases and go to meetings, but that's about it. Being a columnist .... now that's POWER. And, yes, I did mean that the brick wall between editorial and advertising is absolute ... at least at the half-dozen papers I've worked at. I have never once been asked to change an opinion or alter my coverage in any way out of financial concerns. Of course, one of those papers went broke, so maybe that wasn't such a good idea in that case.

I'm behind, as always, and haven't posted to this thread. but i basically agree with steve. i think the whole anonymity issue is a false one. the "brick wall" between restaurant and reviewer is an artifice. that said, in response to earlier posts, the "brick wall" between the advertising and editorial sections of a newspaper are not. this is based on my experience as a restaurant critic and food editor at newspapers large and small in the United States (brit mileage may vary). that said, i think there are a couple of very corrupting aspects of the restaurant/reviewer relationship. The first is that these days chefs are regarded as heroes (imagine!) and there is a very real problem with people getting into the food writing business with the hopes that they will get to meet chefs and become their friends (kind of like the early days of rock 'n' roll). my first boss, way back in my sportswriting days, told me "if you want to be friends with the people you're covering, you're in the wrong business". i do have friends who are chefs and that is one of the main reasons i quit reviewing restaurants (that and the endless mediocre meals and straitjacketed writing form). The other is the flip side of the same coin: the desire for revenge. Whether it's because of bad meals, personal insecurity or just plain old nastiness, there seem to be a lot of people getting into the restaurant reviewing business because of the POWER. they will make all those fancy chefs and expensive restaurants COWER! Equally bad. To me, the ideal restaurant critic is someone who loves food, but not too much; who is deeply informed about food, but doesn't feel the need to convince me of it; who can tell me a story I want to read; and who gives me an idea of what the restaurant is all about. As a side issue, one thing that has bothered me in reading through this thread has been several notable instances of what seemed to me to be libelous comments. Let's bear in mind that just because we're all talking like friends here, these are real people with real lives we are talking about and appropriate care should be given. Passing along unsubstantiated gossip on the Internet is not the same thing as doing it at a cocktail party, it's the same thing as doing it in a newspaper--it will be read and repeated by many more people than you know and it will live forever, even after you correct it. If you know the facts, lay them out, but "someone once told me" is not adequate.

anyone who would diss boiled beef is a fool (how's that for my first post?). I'll make up for it. here's one of my favorite recipes (for the writing, not just the eating). it's from Pomiane. Now tell me this doesn't make you hungry: BOEUF A LA FICELLE To make this dish all you need is a piece of top rump steak weighing between 1 1/2 and 2 pounds, a large saucepan of well-salted water boiling on the fire and a piece of string. Get the butcher to give you a piece of rump steak as nearly cube-shaped as possible and to tie it securely in shape. Now fix a piece of string to the meat. Lift it up, and the meat swings slowly on its string like an incense burner. Look at your watch and take careful note of the time. Plunge the meat into the saucepan and tie the string to the handle in such a way that the meat is suspended in the water without touching the bottom. Put on the lid and wait. The water will have gone off the boil for a moment, but as the heat is intense it soon boils once more. But, you will say, surely this is not the way to make a stew? You are quite right, but you are making boeuf a la ficelle. When you make a stew you want the meat to be edible whilst the gravy is rich and savory. For this reason you put the meat into cold water and raise the temperature very slowly so that after long, slow cooking the goodness is drawn out of the meat. But now you are in a hurry and you want to prepare the meat so that it conserves all its juices. For this reason, you must seal it by plunging it straight into boiling, salted water. You must allow 15 minutes' cooking time for every pound of meat, so look at your watch carefully. When the meat is almost ready, prepare a hot dish and some watercress and see that your salt mill is ready on the table. Lift the beef from the saucepan and remove the string. The meat is gray outside and not very appetising. At this moment, you may feel a little depressed. But don't worry. Take a very sharp knife and slice into the beef. Inside, it is rosy and tender and the gravy pours into your plate. No roast could be quite like this. Give each of your guests a thick slice of meat, some watercress and a piece of French bread. A couple of turns with the salt mill and you are ready to eat.