The conversation about comped meals and hiding the reviewer's identity intrigues me. I'm the food editor in Jacksonville, Florida. It's a growing city with new restaurants opening all of the time.As food editor, my picture is in the newspaper so I do not do the reviews. We do not have a full-time reviewer. I have three freelancers. I assign and edit the reviews.The newspaper pays for the meal. Like many newspapers this size, we go only once. A return trip is paid for only if the first was a horrendous experience. As a result, the restaurant reviews tend to be favorable. They describe the room, give examples of menu items and prices. The reviewer may actually sample only four appetizers and four entrees and four desserts (eating off the plates of their guests). The newspaper will not pay for wine and balks at reciepts that come in at more than $150. As food editor, I am the person the public calls and e-mails for restaurant advice. Because the newspaper does not pay for me to eat, I have not dined at many of the newer restaurants in the area. In fact, if my wife didn't have a much better paying job than myself, my dining experiences would be even fewer. What this is all leading to, as we discuss ethics, do you think that the quality of food coverage and expertise at the midsize newspaper is lacking? Are we serving the reader if we are restrained economically from going to a restaurant more than once or if the food editor only knows about a restaurant from what the review said?