oakapple

In my view (blog post here), Ko is the best shot to get four stars in the three months Bruni has left to him. Ulterior Epicure asked, "What has changed?" The main thing is that Chang introduced a new lunch menu that (by all reports) is much more ambitious than the dinner menu that Bruni reviewed. If Chang has cleaned up the inconsistency that Bruni complained of in his original review, that could be justification sufficient to bump Ko up to four stars. There certainly are precedents for re-reviewing a restaurant this soon. I think Leventhal's premise is correct. The current gap between new four-star restaurants—4½ years and counting—is by far the longest in NYT history. Awarding four stars is a signature moment for a critic, and one that he has largely been denied. He's got to be itching to pull the trigger, though I think he has enough integrity to hold his fire unless he really finds a place that is deserving. (Otherwise, he could have just given four stars to Del Posto or Bouley, and have been done with it.) For now, I think Eleven Madison and Del Posto are out of the running, because he had a blog post about them in December, and strongly suggested that neither one is four-star material. I believe the new Aureole won't be open till June, which means Bruni probably won't have time to fully assess it—even if it would otherwise be a candidate. It is worth noting that the current incarnation of Aureole carries only two stars.

Eleven Madison would be at least double the budget.

As There wouldn't be a journalistically defensible reason to re-review Per Se right now. Chef Benno is rumored to be leaving, but even if that happens, Frank's time will be up too soon to review Benno's successor.I do agree that Bruni is itching to give out four stars one more time, but it's not clear who it would be (see speculation over at Eater.com ).

I almost feel like asking if you're a Chowhound moderator, as they take that absolutist position.However, I disagree. Information never hurt anybody. As long as I am aware of the circumstances, I can judge for myself whether the review is credible. And as Sneakeater noted, there are a wide variety of circumstances, ranging from the true quid pro quo, down to a comped drink that could have been given out for any number of non-review-related reasons. What's more, reviews of fully-compled meals sometimes contain useful, purely factual information—for instance, that the restaurant exists, that it is open at particular hours, that it serves certain items on its menu. Sometimes, a comped review has brought a restaurant to my attention that I was otherwise unaware of. I then start looking around for other (more objective) reviews to see if the place is worth considering.

While you are clarifying your objectives, does $60–80 include tax, tip, and alcohol? There is a huge difference between $60 including tax, tip & drinks; and $80 with tax, tip & drinks extra.

That's right. Unfortunately, even in this recession environment, $60–80 all-inclusive is budget dining by NY standards. You won't get "elegant, modern, visually stunning," and of course great food, for that price.

Leaving aside whether it's an illusion (I do not think it is), that is more-or-less the standard not just at the Times, but at many major publications that review restaurants. ← I used the term illusion because too many restaurants were aware when Bruni or other food critics are in the house so they generally don't dine anonymously anyway. That may not necessarily be the case for a blogger or the critic of a smaller publication. I'm not sure that it makes a huge difference anyway. ← The conventional wisdom is that Bruni was recognized around 2/3rds of the time. If you figure that he visited each restaurant at least 3 times before reviewing, it means that the average restaurant had one truly anonymous visit. Of course, that encompasses a wide range, from places like Katz's deli, where he may have been anonymous every time; to places like Daniel or Le Bernardin, where he may never have been.Even the 2/3rds figure (or whatever the percentage is) means that at some point during the visit he eventually was recognized. It is not necessarily the instant he walks in the door, and in most cases they probably do not know in advance that he is coming. Bruni once wrote that during his meals, he often senses a moment, as if a bell had been rung, when everything changes—the moment when they suddenly figure out who he is. I would say, therefore, that at most restaurants, some portion of his overall experience occurs before he is recognized. And therefore, he is able to fulfill the objective of anonymity, which is to write about how the restaurant treats its non-critic guests.

Leaving aside whether it's an illusion (I do not think it is), that is more-or-less the standard not just at the Times, but at many major publications that review restaurants. There's probably just enough time for Bruni to review it, if he wants to.

If Bill Keller really means everything he wrote in that farewell love-letter, then presumably they'll be looking for someone just like Bruni. That means it will be someone no one could have predicted—a "food fan" who has practically no history of writing about restaurants.Almost by definition, if they pick someone predictable, it will mean they are not trying to duplicate their achievement with Bruni.

My own view is that I do not see a pressing need to declare up-front how I would handle every contingency. My site accepts comments (which I do not delete, unless they are uncivil), and my private e-mail address is also on the site. If someone contacts me via either medium, and says, “You’ve done the wrong thing,” I will make changes if I think they have a valid point (this has happened).

This restaurant is a three-star candidate, not a four-star candidate. Everything that is known about this place suggests that it is not attempting to provide the coddling and luxury that all of the current four-star restaurants offer. Although clearly not a "cheap eat," it isn't expensive enough to be able to duplicate (or even attempt to duplicate) the level of cooking and presentation at, say, Le Bernardin. Although Bruni is about as uninterested in traditional luxury as anybody, he has been a stickler for maintaining those amenities—along, of course, with practically flawless cooking—at the four-star level. He has not yet awarded four stars to any restaurant because it was "good, considering the price." He has done that at the two and three-star levels, but not four. Another problem is that because the menu is so large, it is liable to have some significant soft-spots—practically always the downfall of large menus. Re-read Bruni's review of Del Posto, and you'll see what I mean. This is not to say that Bruni will dislike Marea. To the contrary, he has taken a shine to Michael White's cooking already at two different restaurants, Alto and Convivio. But by its design this restaurant simply doesn't seem geared to four stars. Had it opened in a better economy, it very well might have been. But I think White and owner Chris Cannon are hedging their bets, and so it is not quite as ambitious as it otherwise could have been.

I think there's zero chance that sites like those will display the badge, because most of them are large enough to have their own terms of service. In some cases, those sites already have policies that are very different from those eG has proposed.I imagine that some independent bloggers may adopt the code—people like me. For a variety of reasons, I have decided (for now) not to. For the most part, the code describes things that I believe I do anyway. But the argument (if there is one) should be "whether I have done the right thing," not "whether I have conformed to a code written by other people."

At Per Se, most parties of two are seated at 4-tops anyway. I have dined there twice in a party of two, and both times I was seated at a 4-top (and observed many others likewise). This was during the era when Per Se routinely sold out 2 months to the day in advance. I think the whole dining room has only two true 2-top tables. They have always assumed that a certain percentage of the 4-tops will be taken by parties of 2, and presumably that percentage has gone up.

It's actually a bit worse than that: some of these dishes have been on the menu from the beginning, month after month. with only minor variations.Of course, this attitude towards customers is not unique to Ko. I recall that when Momofuku Noodle Bar was still new, a customer asked David Chang (who was still behind the counter in those days) if he were the chef, and Chang curtly replied, "No." Obviously if that is the owner's attitude, it will spill over to the employees.

That will be true only to the extent that the "market place" demands it. Even Fat Guy, who is clearly in favor of these guidelines, seems to doubt that they will be that influential. So do I.Of course, it is worth noting that eGullet and the other site have not made identical proposals. They do intersect in a number of ways, but they also have significant differences. The other site, for instance, argues that a blogger should visit a restaurant at least twice before posting about it. I strenuously disagree with that. I'm sorry, but this truly is nonsense. A blogger could be sued for defamation only if they have committed an act that the law defines as defamatory. The claim of conforming to the eG Ethics code, even if untrue, is not such an act.

Sure they do "something," but seems like there's no way to gaurantee that in a roomfull of culinary students, like in the football challenge, an anonymous internet post about what happened won't occur. They ain't. You could have them all sign an encyclopedia's worth of papers. How would you determine which person in that roomfull, who otherwise have no stake in the show or competition, posted about it? Or in the restaurant challenge. Or at Blue Hill Farms. Or at Natasha Richard's shindig. The only way to ensure what you say they are trying to ensure is to have no outsiders at all. Of course, unless you meant a double secret stern lecture. ← I was sort of joking about the stern lecture. I really don't know what they do, but whatever it is, it works. There is obviously an element of risk, but they seem to control it by limiting the situations in which the cheftestants are seen in public during the season. The event at Blue Hill seems to have been witnessed only by staffers who work at the restaurant or on the farm, and there really weren't all that many culinary students present for the Super Bowl show. As I said, it's not as if they do something out on the city streets, where just anyone can walk by, hold up their cell phone and snap a photo.

People on the show have confirmed this: they are pretty much compelled to keep everything indoors or in obscure places, because otherwise it would be pretty clear who was eliminated. ← In nearly every judges table challenge, there are members of the public involved in the events they stage. I would think there would be more danger of leaks when the people involved know exactly what's going on, as opposed to random proles on NYC sidewalks who stop and take a gander. ← You will note that those challenges are always under "controlled conditions." I am sure that those who participate are asked to sign confidentiality agreements, or at the very least, are lectured sternly about the importance of preserving the show's element of surprise. I am not sure what they do, but I guarantee it's something, and it seems to work.Now contrast this with, say, holding an event in the middle of Central Park, where any random person can just walk by, snap a cell phone photo, tap something into twitter, and so forth. Under those conditions, it really would be impossible to prevent spoilers from being pretty widely disseminated.

This is definitely a tough one, because if you allow people to comment, you also need to invest the time to weed out spam and other inappropriate posts.

Obviously there is no set of ethical guidelines that everyone will accept, just as there is no religion or political party that everyone accepts. But I think that it's laudable to see both eGullet and the Food Ethics Blog site drawing attention to a matter that has, until now, skated along without much formal guidance.If either one of these guidelines is succesful—that's a big IF—I doubt that there will be many major food bloggers who haven't heard of them. Bloggers will decide for themselves whether these guidelines are worth following—just as people decide whether to be Democrats, Republicans, or neither. Readers will then decide for themselves whether a blog's decision either to adopt or reject one of these codes actually makes any difference. Oh, sure there is. If you haven't noticed that blogs are getting a lot of media attention, then I have to wonder what you've been reading. At some point, I could imagine that unethical blogs would be called out for censure, just as the Times would be if it turned out that Frank Bruni were accepting free food in exchange for good reviews. Obviously these ethics codes are a damp squib at the moment, since they're brand new. But the idea that they could become influential at some point seems quite reasonable to me. (That doesn't mean it will happen, of course.)For what it's worth, the eGullet guidelines seem a lot more reasonable to me than those the Food Ethics Blog is proposing, and if I formally adopt anything, it will likely be the former.

I do not recall seeing that when I dined there last September. I am pretty sure that I did not leave an additional tip on top of the 20% they had already added. And I do not recall they said anything to me, either. I believe the price changes according to the cost of ingredients, and what Chef Masa decides to serve. In the go-go days, it could have been changing month to month, or even week to week. We probably wouldn't have been aware of every change, since no one who posts here eats there regularly.

I think you've perhaps misread the intent—or what I take to be the intent. Subscribing to the ethics code has nothing to do with credentials or being worthy of reading. It only has to do with ethics.I do think that a blogger or board poster who follows these principles is more ethical than one who does not. That's obviously a broad-brush statement, as some of the principles are more important than others, and not all violations are alike. But in general, it's a pretty good statement of how the job ought to be done. Qualifications and honesty have nothing to do with one another. The code doesn't prescribe qualifications for blogging at all.It's true that someone could claim to be following the code while in fact violating it. There is no sure-fire way to prevent dishonesty. But once someone has made an affirmative statement that they're doing something, they're a lot less likely to violate it than if they had never addressed the matter. For those that claim dishonestly to be following it, there is always peer pressure and media attention—at least in the more flagrant cases.

People on the show have confirmed this: they are pretty much compelled to keep everything indoors or in obscure places, because otherwise it would be pretty clear who was eliminated.

I have received five fully-comped meals in my capacity as a "food blogger," which is less than 1% of the reviews I've written. In each case, the post-meal blog entry disclosed the circumstances. As long as folks know that the meal was comped, they can decide for themselves whether the review is credible. Of course, in a comped review, even if you ignore the opinions, there can be useful information—e.g., that the restaurant exists, that so-and-so is the chef, that such-and-such is on the menu, and so forth. (When they comp New York Journal, it usually means that not many folks have heard of the restaurant.) As some of you may know, I normally rate restaurants on a "star scale" similar to that employed by the Times. I decided that for pre-arranged comps, rare as they are, I would not give out stars based on that meal. I don't think anyone gives a damn about my stars anyway, but it felt like the right way to handle it. When there's a comped drink or a comped course, within an otherwise paid-for meal, it's harder to state firm rules. I never tell the restaurant that I'm a blogger, but because I take pictures, they may have guessed that. Or they could be sending out the comp for other reasons.

First, if you sucked down the entire cocktail list, you'd be dead. Second, which drinks did you try and what makes you a cocktail expert? Now, we all know Ms. Moskin's a food expert, because she cooked everything in Mastering the Art, but has she made every drink in, for instance, Wondrich's Esquire Drinks?I think you're being too hard on Ms. Moskin. After all, it is a Dining Brief. She didn't say she sucked down the whole cocktail list, only that you'd be tempted to. It was just a way of saying that, in her opinion, the menu required too much explanation. I am not saying the comment is true—I'd have to dine there to assess that—but I think it is reasonably clear that she is using humor to explain what was wrong, not seriously suggesting that you ingest every cocktail on one visit. Needless to say, in modern times we have not had a critic who was an expert on every food, every cocktail, and every wine. No one needs to be an expert, or to have made every drink, to say that to their own taste the drinks were too sweet. (To put it differently, if I think something is too sweet, no purported expert is entitled to inform me that I should have liked it.) Even in longer reviews, the critic practically never lists all of the wines s/he tried. Well, I don't know how many times we've all heard the mantra that "fat is flavor" and in my opinion, nuts, olive oil, pork and cheese all taste pretty good. Especially they way they're used at 'inoteca. That could very well be, but all it tells me is that you tried the same food and had a different reaction to it than she did. This wasn't a review. It was a "Brief," which in the Times format is a quick fly-by of restaurants deemed not worthy of a full review—in this case, because it is a near-clone of another restaurant downtown.

Most media outlets rely, from time to time, on reporting done by others. For instance, the Times might say, "The Wall Street Journal reported that...." But the Journal has a reputation that can be relied on. That doesn't mean they're always correct, but they're not just a blog written by a twenty-something in pajamas. In the modern blogging world, just about anything can be "blogged," and other bloggers will pick it up without running their own fact check.