>I want to go back to an example given here, where I was the subject. Let's give that example in a more realistic >manner: William Grimes wants to spend a week in a restaurant kitchen and write about it. I say great, let him do >it, let him write about it, and not only will I enjoy reading it but also it will make him a better critic. Now, let's say he >spends that week at Jean Georges. And then it comes time a year later that he has to review Jean Georges. So >what? Would anybody seriously say he shouldn't do it? I suppose the editor of the section should say, "Hey, Bill, are >you worried that you might pull punches? Want to let Frank handle it?" But if the answer is no, and the answer feels >honest, let him do it. What's the downside? The restaurant critic for the New York Times should not act like Ceasers's Wife...He is Ceaser's Wife! Any departure from the most scrupulous of ethics would diminish him/her in the eyes of the professional community and ultimately (IMO) in the eyes of the general dining public. He works for us (professionals) also. The Times seems to take care to keep the fluff separate from the reviews and ( most importantly) to demand more than an avocational knowledge from it's writers before allowing them the serious work of a restaurant critic. They instinctively understand that we derive at the least our living and in most cases our lives from what we do and that their honest writing has the power to enhance or destroy those lives. There may be no actual downside to a critic wanting to do a piece on a restaurant that he may ultimately review and as an intellectual exercise there may be nothing wrong with it. But why would you want to make even an incremental dent in a reviewers credibility? Especially in as high strung a place as the New york restraurant world. P.S. having trouble with the editor. Sorry for any confusion. YMMV
