oakapple
-
Posts
3,476 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by oakapple
-
-
I like Mas, but Gramercy operates at a higher level...just as Blue Hill operates at a higher level than Telepan.
-
Early on, Chowhound had a Draconian approach to what they considered shilling. If you were comped anything, for any reason, the post was deleted.
-
I am not suggesting that it is inappropriate for Josh, or any other journalist, to develop a relationship with sources. But I suspect that if Josh worked for Gourmet, Bon Appetit or Saveur, and he kept showing up week after week with stories about one particular purveyor, with no other purveyor ever included for purposes of comparison, his editors would start to suspect that something was amiss. It does not mean anything actually is amiss, only that a reasonably aware reader would start to doubt that the reporting was valid.
Josh says he's not a critic...but of course he is. The decisions about whom to feature are acts of criticism. And he posts actual "editorial reviews," such as this one.
-
I did say that Josh is shilling for Pat LaFreida, in the sense of being so deeply intertwined that what he says is no longer believable.I don't see it as an all-or-nothing proposition either. But we have people saying Josh is "in those people's pockets," a "shill for Pat Lafreida" (you have said this too), and that he publishes "false information based upon rumors." So the faux-even-handedness of later comments -- oh, I don't mean anything personal against Josh -- rings hollow. -
I don't see it as an all-or-nothing proposition. If Josh's blog were useless to me, I wouldn't read it. I have, at times, visited places that he recommended. I have also ignored some recommendations that I might have accepted if they had come from someone more believable. It's possible to admire Josh for what he does well, while also pointing out the flaws—just as we do with Frank Bruni all the time.
But that's the same reductionist position that Sneakeater is taking, where all food journalism gets held up to the standard set by Frank Bruni and the New York Times. That's the tail wagging the dog. Yes, if you present yourself as an anonymous, arms-length critic the public has the right to expect you to be anonymous and arms-length (forget for the moment that most so-called anonymous reviewers aren't most of the time). But if you don't present yourself that way -- and Josh certainly doesn't -- then there should be no such expectation. Josh is not out there to expose what's bad. If that makes the information he provides less appealing to you, so be it.Sometimes restaurants are bad (or they have elements that are bad). We consumers want to know these things, but it's in the restaurant's interest that we do not find them out. -
It would be nice if the restaurant's interests and my interests were always aligned. Often, they are...but not always. For instance, the other day I was upsold a side order of brussels sprouts, even though my entrée already came with brussels sprouts. By omitting a piece of important information (either willfully or due to carelessness), the restaurant's income and the server's tip were higher (I did not ding her for that).So you're either for or against "the restaurant industry" or "the PR side" thereof? That presupposes, doesn't it, that "the restaurant industry" is against you? This all seems quite Manichean.Mostly, restaurants are in business to serve great food and offer great service, in which case their interests and ours are aligned. But if this were always the case, you'd never see a bad review. Sometimes restaurants are bad (or they have elements that are bad). We consumers want to know these things, but it's in the restaurant's interest that we do not find them out.
-
It depends what question we are trying to answer. If it were a crime to be a shill, could Josh be convicted? No. But does he operate in ways that leave his objectivity in serious doubt? Yes. Are there ways he could fulfill his self-stated mission while being more above-board? Undoubtedly. As long as he chooses not to do so, are we well within our rights to point out the multiple conflicts of interest? Absolutely.This seems to be the crux of the matter. Looking at Josh, can someone describe a situation in which he gave disproportionately positive and/or copious attention to a restaurant, company or product that was clearly undeserved and not a reasonable matter of opinion? I mean, I don't agree with him that Di Fara is better than Franny's or that you can get a better steak at Sammy's Roumanian than a less-than-perfect Peter Luger -- but I don't think one can make the argument that Di Fara and Sammy's Roumanian had somehow nefariously influenced him to profess those opinions. -
Because it is hard to know whether to take someone's recommendation seriously, unless you know what they are comparing it to.
Who cares?You don't know which beef purveyors he "rejected" before giving all that attention to Pat LaFreidaThere are certain situations that so blatantly invite conflicts of interest that one would have to be a rube not to be concerned about them. You know...senators who accept free gifts from corporations, then sponsor legislation those very same corporations are lobbying for? The senator may claim that he would have sponsored the legislation anyway, but it looks bad, and in many cases it is bad.
-
The word "shill" tends to get used a few different ways. An obvious case is if the chef asks his best friend to post what purports to be an independent "review" (or even worse, the chef writes it himself). Josh Ozersky is not that type of shill.
The term is also used sometimes where the writer isn't "in bed" with the chef or restaurant, but the favors exchanged invite a serious question as to whether the review could be reliable. It is, of course, possible for someone to honestly believe they are objective, and yet to be mistaken. I assume that when Fat Guy first knew Josh Ozersky 10 years ago, Josh wasn't getting comped as much, because he wasn't as well known.
Josh's policy (if it is a policy) to only write about things he likes becomes a "Take my word for it" proposition. You don't know which beef purveyors he "rejected" before giving all that attention to Pat LaFreida, who I agree seems to be overrated.
In terms of the factual accuracy on Josh's blog, I don't have an issue with it. He makes mistakes at about the same rate as all the other blogs, and when they're pointed out, he corrects them.
-
Actually, there is no need to substantiate them; Josh did so himself. The original "accusation" was that Josh was in the hype business, and he basically responded: "Yup, I am." It was alleged that he gets comped all over town, and he said, "Yup, I am." So the basic facts really aren't disputed at all. The word "shill" lacks a crisp definition, but people who do what Josh admits he does are often called "shills." It might not be fair, but that seems to be the common usage of the term.So now I think those who are making such accusations might think about either substantiating them or retracting them. After all we wouldn't want to publish unsubstantiated rumors, would we? -
I had not realized before that sickchangeup had been there 5 times before. I have to think this was a big reason for all of the extra courses. Per Se is a great restaurant, but I don't think the menu normally balloons from 9 courses to 15 for any party that shows higher-than-normal interest in the food.
-
Per Se might not be the only restaurant that can deliver such an experience. But it is the only one I know of that would do it for complete strangers, simply because they perceived that they had a group of diners who would appreciate the effort.
-
Was that a special menu drawn up for the occasion? It seems to be 14-15 courses, as opposed to the usual 9 that I am familiar with.
-
Stefan acted over-confident and pompous all season long, including those episodes that were shown before the finale was taped. I think you're imagining something that was not there.There wasn't much to work with with Hosea.So, what the editors did was shift focus and create a villain in Stefan to take the attention off Hosea winning.... The editing wasn't so much about building up Hosea as it was tearing down Stefan.
Bravo's editing techniques are standard stuff for reality TV. They look for contestants who are exhibitionists, who will be larger-than-life personalities. There is never a shortage of people willing to do this, especially as there is significant career upside for those who make it to the final half-dozen. I don't know, though, whether the "drama" aspect of the show is causing better chefs to not apply, or to apply and not get chosen.Interesting thought: I wonder if Bravo considers that at all, i.e. "how does the way we portray the contestants this season affect our ability to recruit talent for the next season?" And, does it really affect casting options? Or are there enough chefs out there who would like the publicity that it doesn't matter? -
Today, Frank Bruni reports what readers of this thread already knew: bookings at Per Se, even on the same day, are routinely available on OpenTable. It's a far cry from a few years ago, when you had to call at 10:00 a.m. on the dot, two months to the day in advance of your preferred date, to have a decent shot at getting in (and usually not at a prime time).
A spokesperson tells Frank, "We are discussing some more creative options in terms of pricing" — "creative" being a synonym for "lower."
-
So I am looking through opentable and while there are quite a few tables for 2 people it seems that when I switch to looking for one person all those tables disappear. Do they really split 2-tops out for 2 people and 1 person? If I call them directly would they be able to accommodate me at one of those 2 person slots?
I've noticed the same thing too on OpenTable for a few restaurants. From other postings I am certain that if you call Per Se directly they can accommodate a solo diner. It may be a "quirk" in the OpenTable system that some restaurants don't permit a party of one reservation.
The OpenTable system can accommodate solo diners if the restaurant allows it, but evidently Per Se has elected not to make such reservations available online. The dining room at Per Se has very few true "two-tops" (I believe only a couple of them). Both times I've dined there as a party of two, we were actually seated at a four-top with two chairs missing. I suspect they are loath to commit one of those tables to a solo diner, as they're effectively getting just a 25% yield out of the space. So they probably don't allow that option on OpenTable, figuring that a more lucrative booking (for at least 2 diners) will probably come in later on. If it is still available on the day, then I am sure you could call them and they would give it to you.
-
I also experienced some service sloppiness when I visited a couple of years ago, though not on that scale.
-
Thirty covers on the Monday night after a snowstorm is pretty good, bearing in mind that the restaurant has not yet had any reviews since Bryan arrived. Even in perfect weather, Sundays and Mondays are usually the slowest nights.
-
Several months elapsed between the episodes shot in NYC and those shot in New Orleans. Those in the final four could have guessed that a Louisiana theme was likely to pop up in the challenges, and I'm sure they prepared for that. The NY episodes, of course, were all shot rapid-fire, so there was really nothing they could do to prepare. Every challenge was a new surprise.Ok I need something clarified - many of you have said that they had months to know what they were cooking or going to do but after watching twice i do not see that happening. Seems like they had no idea what was in the kitchen as far as protien etc they were going to cook for the final dinner.
Here again, they could have assumed that certain basic ingredients would be there, but they had to be adaptable. It would have made a lot more sense to give them a budget and let them go shopping at Whole Foods, as they did earlier in the season. I am assuming this wasn't allowed because if they were observed shopping in public, it would be a dead giveaway as to who had reached the finals.Hosea grabbed two items that Stephan needed so I am thinking that it was not like they gave a grocery list to the show so they cook fix their "planned meal". I understand that they all had ideas about what they might want to do but until they saw the ingredients they had in the kitchen could they then make set plan. -
What you're basically saying is that the rules produce a "meh" winner 40% of the time. Of course, without a larger sample the actual probability is not known—over many years, if it lasts that long, the show could be better or worse than that. To "fix" it, they need to tone down the elements of chance and luck, because those are the factors that produce undeserving winners.I think the producers of Top Chef better pay attention to the complaints.Something went dreadfully wrong this year.
Season 1 was compelling.
Season 2 resulted in an unworthy winner, Ilan Hall.
Seasons 3 and 4 rocked...great competitors, great cooking. Apparently Bravo fixed the problems.
Season 5, I think, was lamer than Season 2. An uninspiring winner (I would never go out of my way to eat Hoser's food) and no interesting drama. Note to Bravo - the Hoser-Ho thing was not interesting.
I don't know how to fix this but this season sucked. Given all the problems, maybe add a creativity factor to the judging to decrease the changes of some average cook like Hosea making it through?
ETA: What I'm saying is that I don't think Bravo fixed anything after Season 2, or that they necessarily broke anything in Season 5. It could have been just bad luck that we had undeserving winners twice, or good luck that it did not turn out that way a lot more often.
-
Someone with the show said they were limited as to what they could do, as any appearances in public places would be a dead giveaway as to who had been eliminated.And what a waste of two culinary capitals, NYC and NO. -
That's not quite his argument. He thinks that Stephan and Hosea did equally well in the final challenge. All agree that if this were the case, past performance could be used as the tie-breaker. Toby was outvoted because the remaining 3 judges believed Hosea cooked the better meal, and therefore the tie-breaker could not be invoked.But is he not also arguing that he should have been able to take Stephan's past performance into account in the Finale judging? I'm saying that is path fraught with peril under the current system. -
You need to go back and read the piece. He is not advocating for that, but rather, explaining why that would not work.But there's no scoring system to begin with. He's arguing that the subjective "score" he's assigned to Stephan's season performance should trump at the end. He wasn't even a judge the entire season....Now if he wants to come up with a points based scoring system, and have them rank the entire field each episode and accumulate scoring like the actually do in some racing series, then I say more power. But he just wants to impose that element in what would be a subjective manner on the day of the Finale and that doesn't help. Or so I think.
-
There are others you can use, like Toby's analogy, the motor racing season. I think his valid point was simply that if cumulative scoring were used, you could have a situation where the finale was either irrelevant or completely drained of suspense. Obviously Bravo doesn't make money (and hence, doesn't produce the show) unless it can attract viewers, which in turn requires an episode every week where the outcome is in doubt.I don't like the baseball analogy.
The Big NY Dining "blogs"
in New York: Dining
Posted
To give credit where it's due, this Feedbag post (Le Bernardin vintage dinner) is both credible and informative.