Daniel Rogov

Pam, Hi... Basic ingredients are mango, mustard, cumin, fenugreek, chili peppers, turmeric, garlic and salt along with corn oil. Because the mango should be chunky, the sauce is not often fully smooth . Frequently at felafel and shwarma stands the sauce sits in a large bowl and the solid parts sink to the bottom, so best is to scoop some up with a long spoon. Hard to imagine amba in powdered form..... Sorry, don't have a recipe as I always purchase mine at Gina's, the felafel stand opposite my newspaper (HaAretz) on Tel Aviv's Rehov Shoken.

Simply curious - if you had dined there before and knew precisely what to expect (and that is what you received): (a) why did you return and (b) if you got what was expected why do you complain?

Joan, Hi.... I just spotted your note now (no fear, my senility began when I was 14 years old so no need to worry now). You are, of course correct in that once recognized the critic can be assigned the best waiter/waitress in the place, that the service will indeed be more responsive, more friendly (albeit less familiar). Knowing and armed with this the critic must be certain to keep a close eye on other tables to follow carefully how the service is going there - to see whether they get the same attention, response time, warmth, "sincerity" whatever. As to the food, to some extent that can be improved in honor of the critic. That is why I always make sure to order at least two-three of the most standard of dishes on the menu. The soup, many of the desserts and most of the sauces, for example, have been made long before my arrival and there is little that can be done to salvage those. And I always like to play my own little games - e.g.asking for my steak with sauce Bearnaise when Bearnaise is not on the menu -. If the chef did not know how to make a Bearnaise before my arrival, he/she is most certainly not about to learn because I'm sitting there. Another game - having my party of three guests enter the restaurant before I do, to order for four and only when the first course is on the table for me to enter (that is why God invented the cell-phone, no?) Indeed one can also get larger portions, but one watches carefully to see the portions that others receive......etc etc And, as I like to cite Robert Courtine: "If they know I'm there and it's not perfect that only proves that they cannot do it perfectly"

It was officially announced this morning that the major supermarket chains of Israel are (a) limiting purchases of rice and (b) raising the price of rice by 70% this week.

Theo, Hello.... I'm going to have to disagree with several of your points. First of all, McDavid's was never associated with nor did it ever become McDonalds. McDavid's was its own chain (about 15 outlets) and actually did quite well for more than a decade until local competition - "Burger Ranch" came along. And "Burger Ranch" did okay until McDonald's and Burger King came around. As to the quality of the McDonalds burgers in Israel - all pre-formed, portion controlled and frozen when they arrive at the branches, I would have to suggest that without an adequate amount of whatever is in that abysmal sauce, the burgers themselves have no taste whatever. Oh yes - most of the McDonalds in Israel are not kosher. All depends on where they are located.

No, no, no!!!! You have it all wrong. Those things are not really designed as pepper mills but as weapons. Think about it. Tick a waiter off at just the right moment and he/she has a weapon in hand every bit as efficient and not quite as awkward as a mace and chain. On which I cannot resist a

Common throughout Israel and depending on where you wander, the meat varies depending on the local population. In the Druse restaurants on the Golan Heights the meat is primarily ground lamb, that sauteed together with onions, the pine nuts toasted and added separately In the Wadi Asnas area of Haifa, where most of the humous joints are owned by Christian Arabs the topping is often of lamb shawarma (and in the more tourist oriented places turkey shawarma) In the Bedouin shuk in Be'er Sheva the meat used is often beef, that seasoned much as one would shawarma In the Jewish side of the Be'er Sheva shuk the meat is ground lamb seasoned heavily with cumin and anise. Moving into the Palestinian cities of Schem, the main meat used is beef; in Jericho a treat often with ground wild partridge or pigeon meat. As is said, the Lord and humous wander in strange and wondrous manners

Agreed with Steven on two points: (a) That the issues of anonymity and comps are unrelated (b) That wineries too can play tricks when they send out samples The leading such trick is "special bottlings" for tastings, competitions and critics that may not even be from the same cuvee or even the same blend as those bottles headed to market. When special treatment is given in a restaurant that's one of the "rules of the game". When special bottlings are made for competitions or critics that is out-and-out fraud. Not many wineries will do this but some do. One of the way one checks from time to time is by re-tasting, sometimes even on the same day but from two numbered glasses tasted blind, one with the sent sample and the other from a bottle purchased. Also clear that a barrel tastings many winemakers will obviously draw from their most promising and not most "average" barrels. Critics learn who plays the tricks. The stupid critic doesn't hold his job very long.

I notice that nearly all of the posts on this thread come from people residing in North America. One hates to rub salt into open wounds but the easy availability of lamb may be one of the most valid reasons to move to Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine or Israel. Not only lamb readily available but also mutton and kid.

Steven, Hi... Mr. Parker indeed accepts bottles for tastings, does attend barrel-tastings, and does visit wineries. I do not know Mr. Finigan so cannot comment on that (fair enough though, as I'm fairly sure Mr. Finigan doesn't know me either). I personally know no wine critic who buys nearly all of the wines he/she tastes. Au contraire, most have a specific set of guidelines for what they will and will not receive. As to potential bias, that is one of the reasons why one does blind tastings whenever possible. With regard to Consumer Reports (for which I have a high level of respect), there is a difference between wine, automobiles and most other items. Cars, stereos, toasters, vacuum cleaners and computers can be re-sold after testing to cover the bulk of the expense. Wine, once opened and tasted, has no refund value. That may be one of the reasons why Consumer Reports does not taste and write about 10,000 or more wines annually.

Please see my first post on this subject at http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=114197 I'm sure we'll get further into this issue on that thread. Thanks.

We've been well into the subject of complementary meals for restaurant critics, so perhaps the time has come to look at the question of free wines, wine trips and other "freebies" that wine critics receive. Apologies in advance for wordiness..... In general, there are several ways in which a wine critic can receive the wines that he/she is going to review 1. Individual visits by the critic to and tastings at wineries 2. Invitations to visit a winery as part of a group of journalists 3. Invitations to tastings held not at the winery but elsewhere 4. Tastings at professional or non-professional wine exhibitions 5. Tastings sponsored by importers, distributors and wine stores 6. Bottles sent from wineries for tasting 7. Purchasing wines for tasting My take on each of these, and even though I feel strongly about each of these issues, am most certainly open to discussion and debate. 1. Individual visits to and tastings at wineries One of the few ways in which a critic can do both barrel tastings, advance tastings and re-tastings (including vertical and horizontal tastings) is by visiting wineries. If visiting a winery in one's own area and the critic is offered a ride by someone from the winery, I see no problem in that. If a bit out of one's area the train or plane fair should be paid by the critic (and note that unless otherwise mentioned that I am talking about critics with a travel budget) If the winery picks you up at the train station or airport, no problem. Those are little more than common courtesies and should in no way be misconstrued. Such visits are critical, not only if you write a book about the wines of your area but if writing even about international wines is part of your work. If after the tasting the winery invites you to lunch, also no problem but only on the condition that you keep close track and the next time you meet someone from the winery for coffee or lunch you (your publication) picks up the bill. Reciprocation whenever possibleis the key here. It should also be noted that at such lunches the people from the winery tend to be more relaxed and you can learn a good deal about what is and what is about to be happening in their vineyards, with their staffing and with regard to future plans. 2. Invitations to visit a winery as part of a group of journalists Many wineries unveil their about to be released wines at a press party at the winery and in so doing invite those journalists they consider either important or those who will write a positive kind of puff piece for them. It is clear that critics should never write puff pieces. My feeling is that one can and should attend such functions, even though they are largely at the expense of the winery because such events offer the chance to taste for the first time or to re-taste the wines that are about to be released, to talk with the winemaker and perhaps others at the winery and (being perfectly honest) to find out where your colleagues "are at". On some occasions one attends such events in order to be a lady or gentleman – that is to say especially in the case of wineries that have opened their doors to you before and at which you have already done extensive tastings. As they have showed you the courtesy of devoting an entire day, sometimes of the entire staff of winemakers, to hold a tasting entirely for you it is only courteous that you show up at events they consider important. 3. Invitations to group tastings held not at the winery but elsewhere. To me, the ideal tasting takes place in a tasting room with minimal odors, good lighting and a temperature that you can live with. They also take place with a group that, other than the winemaker who is presenting his/her wines, knows how to keep their mouths firmly shut during the tasting. I frankly don't give a flying fig for what anyone other than myself thinks of the wines and certainly am not about to share my opinion before my tasting notes are written and, in most cases, not until they have been published. If the tasting takes place at a restaurant and is accompanied by a meal, I am unhappy because I do not believe wine should be tasted with food (the aromas, flavors, texture, etc) of the food interfering with one's tasting abilities. (I'm for nothing but salt and sugar free bread and water on the table kind of taster in my own tasting room). If the person in question is both a wine and restaurant critic (as am I), such meals should never be written about unless you are seated on your own, perhaps with one or two colleagues and can order a la carte. In such cases, even though the winery pays for your meal, the critic should leave a staff tip equivalent to the amount that his/her meal would have cost. 4. Tastings at professional or non-professional wine exhibitions Professional wine exhibitions (e.g. WineExpo, VinItaly, ViniSud, ProWein, London International Wine and Spirits, etc) are excellent places to do tastings. At the very best of these exhibitions you can taste 125 or more wines every day and can even arrange to taste many of those blind and quite often even in excellent tasting circumstances. If the exposition is funded at least in part by governmental bodies I see no harm whatsoever in accepting air fare and hotel arrangements from them (again, so long as the invitations come from a governmental or government-related agency). Critics should not accept airfaire and hotels from wineries but of course may have budget for this from their publications Among such events I also include annual barrel tastings or "on-release tastings" that are held for large numbers of people in the trade, including critics (e.g. Bordeaux, parts of the Rhone, etc) Attending a certain number of such events is absolutely critical for the wine critic who is to keep his/her repertoire of tastings au curent. 5. Tastings sponsored by importers, distributors and wine stores In a way, as much as dealers may set out to impress critics at such events, they are quite impersonal and offer little "threat" to integrity. Often a good way to preview and crit wines that are about to appear on the local market. 6. Bottles sent from wineries for tasting It is generally acceptable for critics to accept one bottle (occasionally two) for tasting but that on the condition that the critic does his/her tastings blind or double blind, that is to say with no way of knowing at the moment other than a general category what specific wines are being tasted. It is not in general acceptable to accept more than that, for then the wines are for your drinking pleasure and not merely for tasting. The only possible exception to that is the winery that knows the critic well enough to realize that a second and possibly third bottle will be set aside for future tasting (one, two or more years in the future). Critics should not "hold it against" any winery that does not send wines for tasting. It is the privilege of any winery to send or not send wines to whomever they want. In that case there are the above (that is to say methods 1-5) to fall back on or worst comes to worst, to purchase the bottles. 7. Purchasing wines for tasting. Critics taste anywhere from 100-1500 wines monthly. (Please note that I said "taste" and not "drink. Even critics have to guard their livers and other parts of their anatomy) There is no critic on the planet and no publication on the planet that can afford to purchase all of those wines. Legitimate publications do, however, give their wine critics budgets for those purchases that are absolutely necessary. As to what is forbidden to the critic: Freebie trips at the expense of wineries, distributors, stores, importers, etc; accepting additional bottles of wine as a "thank you" before or after the wine has been reviewed and accepting wines to add to one's personal cellar rather than to taste. And more, but after this many words the mind grows weary (as is probably the reader who has come this far). Considering the serious objections I have stated towards accepting complementary meals, the major question I expect to arise is: "Why is it acceptable to sometimes accept wines or attend wine-tasting events sponsored by commercial sources when it is forbidden (in my opinion) to accept such meals?" Simple enough – of the thousands of wines that one receives as samples or tastes at events, 99% is tasted and spit and only 1% actually goes into the body. True, one might save the best wine tasted in a given day for dinner but that hardly comprises a bribe or tempts one to change one's impression or tasting notes (after all, the wine was selected because we thought so highly of it). Second, as much as tasting wine can be a very rewarding challenge, it is very, very hard work, the time and concentration involved in tasting dozens or more of wines in a day being enormous and then adding the time required to write up and post or otherwise publish the tasting notes. The rewards are great because most critics love wine (as much and perhaps even more of a philosophical base than food) and love the challenge of testing and re-testing their own palates. Enough for now. I look forward to the dialogue that will hopefully develop from this too-long post. P.S. Because I have written this for the forum and not for my various print outlets, I am not proof-reading it as I should nor is it being edited by a professional editor. I therefore apologize in advance for any grammatical or spelling errors that may have worked their way in.

I enjoy being touched by people I know and like or love; I enjoy being touched by people I would like to get to know; and I enjoy casual touching (the handshake, the touch on the shoulder, the kiss on the cheek or cheeks) in places where it is considered appropriate. As much as I can appreciate and even admire the services and attitude of waiters these are not people who are about to enter my social circle (unless it happens in another circumstance) and the only appropriate touch in my opinion is if we offer our hand after the meal as a way of saying "thank you, you added to the pleasure of our dining experience".

Sure as all get out it was not me. I never was and never will be wealthy enough for that. Not putting you off but just returned from the Golan Heights, its almost 1 in the morning and tomorrow I'm going to be starting a new thread relating to how wine critics obtain wines for tasting. Does tie in with the comping of meals, so will (with permission from the administrators) post the thread on this part of the egullet forum.

I cannot resist. Following is a link to a crit I wrote just last week about a restaurant in a hi-tech area near Ben Gurion Airport in Israel. Although I write about a single meal, I actually attended twice with precisely the same results. After all I have said until now it should go without saying that my dining-out budget from the newspaper covered the cost of my meals completely. The day the review appeared I received an email from the owner of the restaurant to the effect that: "It was not easy or rewarding to read your review this morning but because we know and recognize your professionalism we appreciate your comments and will most surely take them into consideration". I plan to return again in 4-6 months. If no changes, no further review will be necessary. If major improvement, it will be my pleasure to re-review the restaurant. Here's the link: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966462.html

Naftal, Hi... Being eminently human and not one iota more, there is no question but that critics can and do err. The critic can err on anything from the description and evaluation of a specific dish or to the evaluation of an entire movement in the culinary world. If the error is made in good faith it is nothing but an error. If it is done out of malice or out of the need for self-promotion it is a sin. Errors are a heckuva lot easier to correct than sins. The trick of course is when realizing that one has erred is to admit it openly in your column. Not as a small box tucked away on page 27 but as the opening of your column. As to what you refer to as "the clueless masses", let us keep in mind that the truest critics of the critics are precisely the people who read us. They, in the end are the ones who decide on the fate of both the restaurants and the critics in question. Responding to several other comments and questions raised.... Critics should and do return to restaurants, both the good and the bad to see if they have changed, what is new, what remains, etc.... It is physically impossible to review each and every restaurant on multiple occasions but when major changes are noted they should be re-reviewed. That, by the way can be done in the form of a full column or even a mini-crit. As to just which newspapers pay or do not pay for the meals of critics, let me make a suggestion. Build a list of the ten newspapers in the world you must trust for their editorial integrity. I would be willing to wager that a minimum of eight of those ten newspapers reimburse their critics. Make a second list of papers that you would least rely on for editorial integrity and I would surely suggest that although their restaurant critics do not starve, they surely need another job in order to support their passion. And please, let us not forget passion. The critic (in any field whatever) who lacks it should not be a critic.

In generalized terms, there are four kinds of restaurant review - (a) The rave review that can indeed, when from a trusted critic give a restaurant a tremendous boost and if the restaurant lives up to the review the public can than make the place very "in" (b) The generally positive review can also give a restaurant a boost. It may not mean that reservations will be necessary three weeks in advance but it does mean that people will add this to the places they want to visit. © The so-so or mediocre review will do nothing positive for a restaurant in the short term but go three-four weeks into the future when Mr Smith and Ms Cohen decide to dine out and one says "Did you hear about restaurat X" and the other says "Oh Yeah..Rogov wrote about it a few weeks ago". "What did he write? I don't remember but let''s give it a try. In other words, no damage done by the critic. That will be done by Mr Smith and Ms Cohen (d) The killer review. Indeed this will turn off a great many potential diners but no critic today is so powerful that he/she can close a restaurant no matter how terrible the review. The last person who could do that was the great Curnonsky and he has been dead since the late 1950's. The only time a killer review can truly kill is when by chance three, four or more critics write truly terrible reviews within say a two week period. Finally, one reminder - it is not critics that close restaurants. It is bad restaurateurs bad or misguided chefs, bad or otherwise unacceptable food and bad service and ambiance that do that.

We are most definitely agreed on your point. I wouldn't even think of suggesting such a thing. What I am saying. among other things, is that it might not do any harm if we thought of Kant, Rousseau or John Rawls as setting a scene for ethical behavior. I am also saying that (at least to me) critics in any field who have not a philosophical thought in their heads as they sit down at their computers (or with their ball point pens) to influence public decision making and inspire public thought and debate might do well to find another profession.

The basis of criticism is philosophy, for if were not there would be no moral imperative for the critic. And if we like, let us also keep in mind that food is the only art form that must be destroyed (that is to say, eaten) in order to be appreciated.* In the musical, Oklahoma, there is a song "They've gone about as far as they can go". True, they were referring to Kansas City and we to dining but I guess I too have gone about as far as I can go on this. *Well, I suppose we could include Jean Tinguely and his self-destroying sculptures in this category but that might be stretching things just a bit

With apologies, partly because I've used this phrase on earlier occasions but newspapers, editors, journalists and/or critics who bow to advertising in their reportage or criticism have a name. Honest journalists call them whores. As we all know there are ten dollar whores and fifty thousand dollar whores. The profession is, however, the same.

Steven, Hi.... Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this but it's been busy days. We agree that there is a certain dilemma here. Something akin to wine tasting, for example, when blind tasting helps to eliminate biases caused by labels that may call up good or bad associations. True though that not all tastings can be done blind so I agree with Robert Parker that professionals who are worth their salt should to a great extent be able to put aside whatever preconceptions they may have. The key words there though are "to a great extent". I'd say though that it would be pretty difficult for almost any human critic (as most of us are) to be served a 1996 Krug Brut Champagne and, unless it was outrageously corked, to think anything but of how great the wine is. Agreed also that in many fields, comps are a norm. There is one huge difference between restaurant and wine criticism and any other form. Whatever form most comps take - theatre, baseball, the opera, the cinema, literary - the subject under observation and criticism is dealt with on a primarily intellectual level that perhaps with a certain overtone of emotion. In food and wine criticism, however, the objects we are criticizing become physically part of our bodies and are therefore dealt with both at the intellectual and the purely physical level. I would propose along with Claude Levi-Strauss that we relate differently to those things that become "part of us" and those things which remain "outside of us" I do see the economic problem for critics writing for publications that do not give adequate compensation for either their work or their meals (or wines). Again though, the dilemma is that if we are not willing in some way to subsidize our work there are a hundred people waiting in line who would probably even pay for the privilege of being a restaurant or wine critic. Considering that the vast majority of free-lancers writing about food and wine have another means with which to support themselves, that almost seems "fair enough". As the upward striving broker or surgeon must devote unbelievable hours to his/her career, the freelancer is asked (forced?) to sacrifice a certain amount of cash. We do, by the way, have a certain obligation to restaurateurs, chefs, wineries and winemakers, and that is to be fair. Among our obligations are to do our criticism with thought, hopefully with knowledge, without malice, and with the knowledge that both they and we have the same clients...that is to say, the people who read our columns are the people who patronize their restaurants or purchase their wines. In both cases of course the truest of obligation is to our clients - our readers. From the personal point of view, I have indeed seen journalists who attend press lunches then write rave reviews and later return for yet another comped meal, somehow expecting the restaurant to "reward" them for their positive review. I think you know what I call that. I do know that if a restaurant critic does that in France he/she can go to prison for up to two years. I'm certainly opposed sending critics to jail for their lapses in ethics but am all for them receiving a handshake goodbye from their editors. As to anonymity, agreed a long and oft-discussed topic, so just one question - is there any way that a critic. once fairly well-known can fully maintain anonymity and that no matter how generous his/her budgetary allowance?

As several others have said - advertising and editorial policy should be completely separated. I agree that the NY Times does this but do not agree as was implied above that this is the only place where this is true. I can assure you that every newspaper for which I have ever written, if anyone from the advertising department even "suggested" reviewing a certain restaurant he/she would be walking out the door within fifteen minutes. On one occasion the CEO of a major winery told my editor that "...if Daniel Rogov continues writing wine reviews we will stop advertising in your newspaper". My editor, bless him, responded as should be "First of all, thank you for calling. Second, it is of course your privilege to advertise or not advertise wherever you feel appropriate" And that's the way it should be.

Two threads have appeared recently about critics/reviewers receiving complementary meals at restaurants. I have no desire to be the moral town crier but the many issues involved in comped meals raise a good many questions. I can understand and sympathize with the problems caused, especially to those free-lancers who are paid a pittance for their columns and, to add insult to injury, are given far too little or even no budgetary allowance to dine at the places they are expected to review. The question that arises in such cases as to whether the freelancer is expected to subsidize his/her newspaper or magazine. The answer, alas, in far too many cases, is positive, the problem being that so many people want to write restaurant crits that publications can afford to select those who are most willing to make a cash contribution to hold the job. Unfair, indeed, but a fact of life. After all, too many publishers and editors often take the rather despicable double attitude: (a) why should we pay somebody a good deal of money for doing precisely what it is that he/she wants to do and (b) if you, as the potential critic, do not like the conditions, there are 100 more waiting in line who will be happy to work this way. And, because many really do want both the work, the pleasure of dining out and the perceived "status" of being a critic whose voice is heard, freelancers do wind up paying. Or, let it be stated more accurately, they wind up paying until they have become well established and valued and who remain freelancers building up a repertoire of publications for which they write or are given a full-time position, fringe benefits and all. Putting it another way – starting out as a free-lancer has something akin to being either an apprentice or a graduate student (i.e. a kind of bonded servitude while working for a hopefully higher status in life). It is though a form of voluntary servitude. No-one is forcing the freelance to do whatever it is that he/she is doing. It is a free choice. And, until one has established him/herself, the vast majority of freelancers have some other form of work and income with which to finance their endeavor. Despite the economic problems involved, economic pain does not grant a deferment from the moral aspects of what should be honest journalism. Dr Johnson observed that "most journalists have the ethics of monkeys". His observation was as true in the late 18th century as it is today. That does not mean, however that all journalists or all journalistic publications must have a low sense of ethics. All depends on where one wants to go with his/her life. That there are problems with comped meals is clear, if nothing other than from the psychological point of view that it is difficult to "come down hard" on restaurateurs, chefs and public relations people who have gone out of their way to be nice to you. That is even more true when you are dependent on those people for their "kindnesses". Agreed that well experienced professionals can see through the games that are played and even has counter-games of their own tricks with which to test the mettle of chefs and restaurants both from the culinary and the service side. But again, we return to that nasty psychological double-bind: how do you "kill" people who have been so nice to you? Among other problems – with comped meals the restaurant often knows precisely when you're going to be there and so can assure that the right people are in the kitchen at the right moment, that you will get the finest cut of sirloin that they have on hand, and that the service will be especially attentive. That is true even for the famous critic who is almost always recognized but believe me, that critic has become famous because he/she has learned to recognize and in some cases "shut out" the special treatment and in others to even go beyond it. As the great Courtine put it so nicely: "If they know I'm there and everything is not perfect it simply proves that they cannot do it perfectly". For the freelancer just starting out, such putting asides and going beyonds may be far more difficult. Personally, I find attending press meals even more problematic than receiving comped meals, for indeed when a restaurant knows that the critical press is in attendance everything possible is done to ensure that all is done as well as possible. In a sense, when the press is there en masse, all of the stops are pulled out, the normal "red caviar" (trout eggs) is replaced by servuga or oesetra caviar; the "truffle oil" is replaced with truffle shavings; and even the tablecloths have been better ironed before the press arrives. In my opinion, there is simply no honest way in which one can write a serious crit about a restaurant after such a meal. As to how many times one has to attend a restaurant before writing a crit – sure, I'm all for the good old days when the great Mimi Sheraton was with the New York Times and could dine out at a specific restaurant two-three times with two-three other people before writing a review, but that simply does not happen very much these days. Newspapers and magazines simply do not have that kind of budget. If there were "good-old-days" of that nature, those are long gone. Even the best paid and highest-budgeted critics have a limited amount of disposable cash for their dining adventures and many (even though most of even the most famous critics rarely earn huge salaries) fund a second or third dinner out of their own pocket. As might be said "there just ain't no choice". Being perfectly honest, there are times when one visit, with two or three other people in tow is quite adequate for writing a review. Exceptions are meals that are exceptionally bad or extraordinarily good, in the first case because of the philosophy that every chef or restaurant should be allowed at least one set of foul-ups and in the second to be sure that it was the food and service that so impressed or whether it was the mood or the company and to check the consistency of level. That may cost the critic some cash but in a way is compensated for because the truly bad meal allows us an opportunity both to laugh at ourselves and a kind of journalistic revenge by sharing our findings with our readers; and in the case of the fine meal because who, after all would want to deprive him/herself of another fine dining experience and then the ability to share our pleasure (perhaps even out-and-out joy) with our readers. There are rare exceptions for which I find justification for comped meals. One of those is with the person who happens to be a wine critic and is invited to press tastings that are held at fine restaurants. Most of the honest wine critics I know would prefer tastings held not in a restaurant but in a odor-free and well lit tasting room, the only things on the table being the wines to be tasted, some bits of bread, water and napkins. That happens pretty frequently but there are those p.r. companies/wineries/mporters/stores that know that some critics demand (indeed that is the word I want) "better" treatment and thus hold their tastings with or to be followed by a meal. Not ideal wine tastings but that's life and sometimes about the only way many will get to taste a specific set of wines so unavoidable. For the person like myself who is both a restaurant and wine critic, the rule must be never to write a crit about such a meal and that precisely for the reasons given above with press dinners. Such meals can enter the critic's repertoire of knowledge but no more than that, never destined to appear in print. No question about it – the ideal publication will pay fair wages either to freelancers or to full-time staff members and should cover within reason all expenses for meals, including wines and service. The ideal critic will respect and not abuse that by not inviting too many people to dine, by not ordering the most expensive wines on the menu and by tipping fairly but within local norms. Unfortunately, not too many publications are ideal and not all that many journalists are all that honest. No-one asks that the critic (food, wine, social, theatre, whatever…) to be a saint. What is required is a basic sense of integrity. Apologies for this too long tome but this is a subject about which I have (obviously) strong feelings.

Would appreciate a link to the "freelance restaurant critiquing" mentioned in the first post of this thread. Thanks.....

Not all. I for one feel that smoking of cigarettes, cigarellos, cigars and the pipe can be a rather charming and quite civilized habit so long as it does not impose on the rights of others. Among smokers that I have admired for a variety of different reasons: Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Queen Margarhete II of Denmark, Frankln D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, George Orwell, Oscar Wilde, Jean-Paul Sartre, Che Guevera, Georges Simenon, Albert Camus, Whoopi Goldberg, Sophia Loren, Luciano Pavarotti, Catherine Deneuve, Audrey Hepburn, John Wayne, Johnny Cash, Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Jacques Brel, Frank Sinatra, Marilyn Monroe, John Lennon, Vincent Van Gogh, Alfred Hitchcock, Claude Monet. Pablo Picasso and, of course, Tonto. Popeye and Sancho Panza. With thanks in great part to The Gallery of Famous Smokers at http://www.jusonline.nl/smokers/index.html