JohnL

← I saw this "letter to the ed" --unfortunately, this seems to reflect the state of journalism today. Simply put--style over substance rules the day. Allowing for a difference of opinion it would be difficult for the good Professor to make a case for "extraordinary skill." I have to believe that this is not a "joke"--though I certainly would prefer to. --is she that good? I am going to google "Sara Waxman"--might be interesting to delve into the mind of a person who would use the Gilt review as a "lesson" for would be critics. ok I googled. sadly, Ms Waxman seems to be quite a celebrated writer/critic, restaurant reviewer. I say sadly because she seems to be pretty good at what she does. In fact, based upon the little I saw, she is far better at restaurant reviews than Mr Bruni (and a much better writer to boot). Our eGullet friends from the great white North would probably have more comments with more substance to offer here.

There's a favorite restaurant--"Restaurant 121" --near my country home in Putnam County (New York) that seems to serve every one of its beers and ales in a branded glass. Everything from Guiness to Sierra Nevada and Sam Adams and Anchor Steam to local small producers. (I had a great ale-- Captain something or other that is brewed in Pleasantville NY recently in a branded glass). When I commented on the branded glass --my waiter told me that the restaurant manager was a "fanatic" about serving beer and als this way. He is a good friend of mine and I will make a point of discussing this with him when we go there this weekend.

Re reading the Tod post IMOP--the "fishy" thing is being blown out of proportion. "fishy" and "off" are two different descriptors in food writing. One can be good and the other is definitely bad. IMOP--Tod does a better job--limited by one meal--of describing the food than does Bruni. Also--wallowing in a debate over stars doesn't seem to get one very far. I wish there was more discipline in awarding stars--the best we can expect is the critic in question be consistent and establish a strong rationale for how (criteria) he or she awards these things. As I see it the proof is in the writing of the review--does the critic provide helpful information to a range of types of diners and does that critic provide an accurate assessment of the quality of the experience--atmosphere, service and most importantly food. Especially with a restaurant with the pretensions of Gilt--it is irksome to have important elements like wine list , pricing and service given short shrift--Bruni notes wine prices are high and suggests one look to a long list of teas. this is annoying to a wine enthusiast (one assumes a lot of people interested in a review of a high end place like Gilt would be interested in a bit more information as to the wine experience to be expected). It is also annoying to someone who might want a tad more information on that list of teas Bruni notes. (is not a comprehensive and interesting tea service worth noting in a review?) IMOP--he is too busy using the tea list comment to make a pithy statement about the wine list. It is also irksome that Bruni interjects the comments and opinions of his "companions." The impression is Bruni is not confident asserting his own assessments and feels the need to muster some support to make his case. Bruni and the Times are " gilty" of not providing readers with a good well written review of Gilt. (see it isn't so hard to be "cute"). There is simply not enough information about what Gilt is offering diners. IMOP--Bruni is focusing too much time on clever writing and too little time in perfecting the art of writing a good solid restaurant review. "Companions--comments and jokes, references to cartoon characters, puns, wordplay, and references to popular culture (Kubrick) aside--"where's the beef?!"

Anyone remember something called a "Bermuda Steak Sandwich?" As I recall from my days in the late sixties at Genesee State: It was a rectangular chopped meat (beef) patty on a rectangular roll with onion (Bermuda of course?) lettuce and a sauce (I vaguely recall as mayonnaise based) and maybe some other fixins. Obtainable at the local diner. Also--Beef on a Weck is basically a French dip --the roll is special to Buffalo. My understanding is the French Dip originates from a place in Los Angeles. I am not sure of the timing.

Damn! that thing looks pretty good. For a brief period of time I attended college in the Rochester area. I remember--"beef on a weck"--IMOP--one of the great sandwiches in the world --more Buffalo than Rochester though. also I recall something called a "Bermuda Steak sandwich"--definitely Rochester. anyone know anything about this creation? Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse--one can get some pretty good eats in this "golden triangle,."

I probably go to my copy of Marcella Hazan's: Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking (two tomes in one volume) more than any other cookbook.

In re-reading the Gilt review--I keep getting the feeling that Bruni is not providing an accurate review of the experience one can have dining there. For example he seems to base his assessment of the food upon his observation that the dishes are overwrought or too complicated. The implication is they do not "come together." --fair enough but I can't help but feel that once again Bruni succumbs to his reporter's habit of finding a hook and then hanging his entire review on it. That is, his criticism of the wait staff's descriptions of the food sets the tone and then permeates the review. I get the feeling that Mr Bruni had his hook and nothing he encounters in his visits to Gilt will "get in the way" of his conclusions. He makes no mention of the fact that Gilt's menu is divided into two distinct parts: "Classical" and "Modern" with classical dishes seemingly designed for less adventurous eaters. (is this a recent change in the menu that was not operative when Bruni dined there?) He makes no mention of lunch--an important part of any mid town restaurant's service. He writes little of the wine service and wine list giving it an offhand mention. As for his "hook" --he provides little or no context--Liebrandt is, afterall, ventures into "experimental" cuisine--a knowledgeable waitstaff providing diners with information can be helpful (it can annoy some--my wife still recalls unfondly the lengthy ingredient descriptions at Blue Hill at Stone Barns). There is a difference between as mr Bruni puts it: "a tutorial on the workings of the menu" and "a treatise on the thought process" behind the cooking. Bruni (and his "dining companions") don't ask for a paired down recitation--which is what many diners with his aversion would do. Nor do they apply the "treatise" on the thinking behind the cooking--perhaps in that treatise is an explanation of what the chef is attempting to accomplish with the dishes Bruni feels are overwrought. Basically the reader takes away: "me and my pals thought the food was too complicated." This is not satisfactory for a review of food with high concept. The cooking at Gilt may be in reality overwrought--but after Bruni's review I am not convinced one way or the other. Very importantly: Bruni does not let readers know if a less adventurous meal can be had (a slightly different experience). If, in fact, the restaurant goes to the trouble of providing a dual menu then Bruni is derelict in not discussing this in his review. I wonder if Bruni felt that this would detract from his "hook" about Liebrandt and complicated food. There seems to be some confusion as Gilt's menu and pricing seems to be evolving--one has to be really jaded to believe the changes are due to Mr Bruni's helpful insights--but it is clear that the ingredients --and the supplemental prices are subject to availability. (what else is new in a restaurant with these pretensions). Bruni still does not provide any indication that one can dine more simply here and he certainly does not attempt to provide any context for what the chef is attempting to achieve with the dishes Bruni does not like--maybe Bruni and his dining pals should have paid attention! Bruni's assessment of Gilt may be right on--I just do not trust him.

Thanks for the heads up! At the moment--IMOP--the definitive book on pizza is: "Pizza--a slice of heaven" By Ed Levine. This came out last year--and is highly recommended. Sounds like Everybody Loves.... covers much of the same ground. However, given that Levine is a New Yorker it will be interesting to compare the two books in terms of their sensibilities. There may be an interesting debate on the horizon! (then again maybe not) I look forward to reading "Everybody Loves..."

I'm not sure what "very different take" you're referring to. No one has disputed that Bruni's comments about Gilt's prices were factually accurate at the time he wrote them.In today's review, Bruni says, "When Gilt opened, many dishes came with supplemental charges, and wines by the glass were ludicrously exorbitant. Now the supplements are fewer and the wines slightly less expensive." Since those were precisely the points he complained of, I think it's practically inconceivable that his comments did not have an influence. I would fall off my chair if someone in management at Gilt said, "We would have reduced our prices in any case, and it's just our bad luck that Bruni wrote about them before we got around to it." Whatever the merits of the earlier piece, it was meant to be ephemeral. Today's review will be accessible on the Times website for free, and it's fair to guess that people will be reading it for a long time to come — that is, until another review comes along to supplant it. ← \By "different take" I mean that no one, save for Mr Bruni, seems to have expressed the view that "Gilt" should be singled out for its menu pricing practices. I find that odd. Let's face it-the piece on "gouging" was not the best example of journalism. Bruni took a good topic and screwed his thesis up by too much focus on a newly opened restaurant he had not yet formally reviewed (not a good idea). We can debate this all day. I find your use of "ephemeral" interesting because that is one problem with this type of journalism--it is "toss away" writing with little substance--it certainly had little or no context and perspective.

Patsy's in East Harlem does good slices. (as Pan noted). Though per my experience noted earlier they can be soggy. (inconsistent). I order by the slice often--to me the key is turnover so you are basically getting your slice from a freshly baked pie. I recommend Ed Levine's recent book "Pizza-a slice of heaven." It is as close to a definitive book on pizza as one is going to get. All these topics are covered and the book does review the state of pizza not just in NY but around the country and even in Italy--a great read. Take out pizza is dicey. The box literally steams the crust and a pizza can pick up a distinct cardboard flavor very quickly. I get the box open ASAP and leave the lid up! (even better-remove all the slices from the box). I also find a lot of NY pizza to be heavy and I often get that kind of "fast food" queasy and bloated feeling after eating a couple of slices. (Morgan Spurlock syndrome!) I believe this is because a lot of pizza uses mediocre ingredients and is often not fresh. also too much oil and cheese. The best pizza--IMOP--has a nice balance of ingredients: crust, cheese, sauce, oil etc. For some reason we seem to be cheese crazy. People actually order slices with "extra cheese." As most cheese is pretty mundane or even second rate-ordering more on an already cheese laden slice is to me--insane! I believe too many people equate value with "more" not really appreciating any subtlety. IMOP--loading a slice (or pie) up with what is often tasteless second rate mozzarella is antithetical to the whole concept of pizza! Another practice that makes me crazed is when you order a slice (or pie) with a topping--say sausage--they add extra cheese. And oil--too many pizzas are too oily--I have seen people blotting slices with napkins etc. or holding a slice at an angle so the oil runs off onto the ground in front of a pizza stand. Yeeeeessssshh! The main reason so many slices are soggy --I'm sorry but a crust should be crusty and should actually do a good job of "holding" the other ingredients--is when a pizza is out of balance the ingredients do not cook/bake to the same degree of doneness. So the cheese is not properly melted and/or the crust is not completely done etc. Anyway-as I was saying--to me--balance is the key. A great pizza is one of those "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" thing. Truly great pizza whatever the style--is refreshing to eat--it fills you up and satisfies without making you feel bloated. It is a revelation!!!!

boxed? soggy? could be some connection.... I'm not there enough to be authoritative, but the last pizza I had at Patsy's in East Harlem had an absolutely incredible crust, but then, I was able to eat it there, seconds out of the oven. I think it's the only way to go with super thin-crust pizza like that. ← It was in the box for a few seconds--I jumped in my car and ate the pizza immediately.

Oakapple, we do agree on most of this. As for the Times and its "National" appeal. A few years ago that appeal was a result of the Times coverage and quality--a more "organic" result. Recently, the Times has been consciously making an effort to be National. I would agree with your comments about other media (internet eg) having an impact--but--there is no question that the Times is losing local readership while the Post (for eg) has seen its readership growing. I would suggest that the relevance issue is a factor. As for the article on pricing. I disagree with you. If the issue is restaurant pricing practices then Bruni would have been advised to use examples from well established places--more reliable sources if you will. Or he could have used a number of newer places to show a trend. He certainly could have mentioned Gilt--which would have been fine--however he used Gilt has the main source upon which to hang his hat. The piece was practically a mini review of Gilt. I would also question whether Gilt "responded" to the Bruni criticism. A number of eGullet posters wrote about Gilt with very different "takes" on pricing than Bruni indicated. I am not sure Bruni really got the pricing situation at Gilt correctly in his article--he certainly fails in providing any context (value,amuses, food quality etc) for the prices. Actually I 'trust" the eGullet posters on Gilt more than I "trust" Bruni. IMOP-Bruni's article on pricing would be more compelling had he only mentioned Gilt and provided some more solid support for his thesis. Read now--the article is practically worthless.

Front page of today's NY Times (someone will provide a link I am sure). Headline: Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds. Basically the story covers results from "the largest study (49,000 women followed over eight years) ever to ask whether a low fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet HAS NO EFFECT." The most prescient quote is from Dr Jules Hirsch, physician in chief emeritus at Rockefeller University: "They (the results) should put a stop to to this era of thinking that we have all the information we need to change the whole national diet and make everybody healthy." Interesting.

I would argue that the Times is, in fact, attempting to be a "national" newspaper vs a "metropolitan" paper. I do not think this is a case of "consumerism" infecting the approach to restaurant reviewing. If anything, the paper is losing relevance to NYers--hence its decline in local readership. I do believe you are on to something with the "clueless food critics" statement. Bruni's reviews are lacking in gravitas. They do not provide a context and perspective based upon knowledge and experience for readers. I rarely find any information or perspective that makes the writing anything more than mundane. I have little argument with Bruni's assessments of the food at face value--I simply do not trust him the way I would a critic of more substance. also: This review IMOP--proves that Bruni never should have used Gilt as a prime example for the earlier story about restaurant pricing practices. That story is rendered almost moot--Gilt obviously was a restaurant in progress at the time and hanging the pricing issue story on Gilt --which has subsequently changed its pricing--means the story now has little relevance. This is why, for example, previews of theatrical performances are not reviewed or used as ammunition to make points about larger theatrical issues. Finally, the silliness about the "Kubrickian decor/atmosphere" in the review of Gilt are an immature attempt to be prescient and "smart." They are confusing and strained--not the style of someone who is "comfortable" with his/her reviewing and overall knowledge. (I can't imagine Apple or Sokolov or Reichl resorting to this gimmick).

I think you are right Pan! You would think that given its seeming simplicity--one could replicate the process easily. ---dough/crust, sauce, cheese, hot oven. I am beginning to believe that really good pizza is a matter of basic and high quality ingredients combined and cooked by someone who really cares. Basically a pizza involves variations on a theme--the subtleties in preparation are amazing. It is not something that can be mass produced--hence the wide disparity one gets when places like Totonnos or John's "branch out" --at one time "Ray's" probably meant something. Often we take pizza for granted--we order it, we eat it. I think if you watch it being made--and pizza is probably one of the few items (sushi comes to mind) that one can watch the entire preparation process --you can begin to see these subtleties that lead to greatness. When I watched my pie being made at Johnny's in Mount Vernon a couple of things hit me: first, my pie was made by a member of a family that owned the place--this was a father and son (or son in law) who obviously have a stake in the success of the place and a lot of family pride. This is sadly lacking today--most owners are "entrepreneurs" who don't get their hands "dirty." And many family operations are "farmed"out to employees when they expand. I felt as though I was in their kitchen and they were sharing their food with me. There is a huge difference between: "just like mama made" and "made by mama." Second, I noticed that there was a careful "technique" applied in the assemblage of the ingredients at Johnny's--that is each pie was made the same way. Sauce, olive oil, cheese, spices were applied in the same order/manner for every pie made (while I was there they must have done ten pies. Another important note--the place was pretty busy and each pie was made to order. Basically, it was as though the family had found "the way" to make a pizza and there was no way they were going to deviate from it! I can't imagine asking for "extra cheese" in a place like this. Maybe I am making too much of my Johnny;'s experience--it is only pizza after all! Next time I go I will try to get some pictures to post. I only hope they have not become a "chain" by then.

I agree! What usually happens is--someone posts a link or reference to an article or broadcast and the discussion (sometimes debate) begins here at eGullet. I believe that sites like eGullet are thriving, in large part, because other media are doing a poor job. ABC, NBC, The NY Times, Washington Post, et al, are often doing little more than passing along information and positions developed by special interest groups. Sensationalism and ratings grabs are more important than providing factual information, perspective and context on important issues. We have seen this in the reporting on stories like Food Lion, Teflon, pesticides (alar), Mad Cow, genetically engineered foods, hunger, obesity etc etc etc. These are all serious and important issues that deserve thoughtful reporting so people can make informed choices. It is a shame that ABC does not have a PatrickS to vet science related reporting--fortunately we do! and on a lighter note--where else can one get good information on prions and a recommendation for a hot dog shack for lunch!? This is really news we can use!

I don't know why but I have been on a pizza "kick" lately. I am always up for pizza but given a certain laziness often stay with what is in my neighborhood (deliverable etc). That means Sacco on 9th Avenue in the fifties--pretty good for a neighborhood place. Angelos on 57th street--good too. Recently, I tried Totonnos on the upper East side and was disappointed--the pie was very good but maybe all the hype... Also the uptown Patsy's--the flavor was good but the slices were a tad soggy. (I shoulda inspected before they were boxed.) I am heading to my old Arthur Ave neighborhood soon. I have fond memories of the pie at Marios--one of the best I have ever had. I also recall the fabled Half Moon--great pizza. I also will revisit Catania's which makes only Sicilian pies--this place rarely gets mentioned but the pies were superb and authentic--onions and cheese no sauce. (I recall you can also get a sauced version). I have also visited Sal's in Mamaroneck--Ed Levine is right this place is good if you are in the area. (a favorite lunch of mine is to order two slices at Sal's then head over to Walters for three dogs and some curley fries). I don't know what it is with me--but--I also used to eat the vindaloo at Mumtaz and head over to Papaya King for a couple of dogs when I lived in that neighborhood. But recently, I "discovered" a place that has been around since 1942 (so they say). Johnny's in Mount Vernon (just over the Bronx line and just off the Cross County Pkway). This place makes excellent to outstanding pizza (pies only). Very thin blistered crust, fresh mozzarella, subtle seasoning, really good sauce. Everything in perfect balance. This is the kind of pizza that after eating several slices you don't feel bloated you just crave more (I actually felt refreshed but that's me). This place IMOP is worth a trip. (based on one visit) I enjoyed watching the owner and his son make my pie while the little grandson was entertained by grandma (who takes the orders). They also serve "traditional red checked table cloth" Italian food--which i am definitely going to try. I am also going to try a pie with some toppings next time. Curious, but this place doesn't seem to get a lot of mention (or maybe I am missing it). Wonder if anyone has any comments on it? also the current state of affairs in the world of the NY area pizza scene.

Good points Pan. I think the one thing that is amazing is how these major food conglomerates seem to have left HD alone (and may have improved upon it by adding a wide range of flavors). With any superb ice cream (yes I would include the better efforts in the gelato area) the keys for me are ingredients. Do the basic flavors actually taste like they should--HD strawberry really does have a taste as though one took fresh strawberries and added them to a really good vanilla ice cream. Also--many ice creams are simply too sweet and thus cloying. Finally--maybe the most overlooked attribute--mouthfeel. A really good ice cream relies upon its natural butterfat content for a smoothness and richness. Too many ice creams today (mostly commercial) are loaded up with stabilizers and other stuff--carageneen and guar gum--and have a gummy or bubble gum consistency and they melt in your mouth differently. Ben and Jerry's for eg. (recently, Andy Rooney did a bit on how cream and half and half often contains these stabilizers--I look for "organic" cream and half and half now).

All the suggestions in the thread are good. I would suggest that red Bordeaux would work well with the meat and poultry dishes. I have had some great results matching red wine with the food at Susannah Foo's in Philadelphia (Chinese with French technique) also dishes at Shun Lee here in NYC. I have never eaten there but--there was (still is?) a fine Vietnamese restaurant in Paris that was noted for its collection of fine Bordeaux especially its Pomerols. The food wine pairing there has been acclaimed by food and wine writers. I would stay away from red wine with highly spiced dishes or those where there is a strong element of ginger. Just a thought.

I was heartened to see this thread. First--I am not sure what the difference is between "artisanal" and "mass produced"--a product is either good or bad to me regardless of the quantity in which it is produced. (yes many finer items turn out to be produced in small quantities vs those produced in large quantities). Second--Haagen Dasz (when I "discovered" it) first started appearing in the seventies in Deli's in the Bronx--I believe it was produced in relatively small quantities in the Bronx. Third--I am amazed, but after being bought and sold by major food conglomerates--the basic formula and quality of the ingredients seem to be unchanged. It is also produced in much larger quantities and, there are many more flavors.--benefits of being "large." (unlike Breyer's--a once very fine ice cream which has suffered since being bought and sold). I believe that HD stands up well against any ice cream made anywhere. I do not understand the comparisons to gelato these are two different products. IMOP--one main fact makes HD stand out in today's market--the fact that it is not made with stabilizers! Just about every other packaged brand of ice cream is made with guar gum and other so called "natural" additives. Along with flavor--I believe--consistency it critical. Most other ice creams have an off putting "chewiness" to them. They don't melt uniformly. Also key is the quality of the ingredients, especially the flavorings--strawberry tastes like real strawberries, vanilla like real vanilla, chocolate---etc etc. And--HD is not too sweet--many competitors are marred by cloying sweetness--there is a subtlety to HD. To me--HD is about as good as ice cream gets.--the overall quality and ingredients are excellent--they get the basics right! (and throw in the fact that it is easily obtainable and is made in a large variety of flavors).

the more I read from Mr Bruni the more I am convinced that he (and the Times editor) has no grasp of what a restaurant review should be and how it should be written. The most annoying thing--aside from the tendency toward cuteness/cleverness (the "Bugs in a Blanket" silliness)--is the need to find a "hook" in every review leading to the bizarre "orange decor theme" or the "my ass was comfortable" stuff. He can't seem to provide clear and concise critical observations. This recalls the departed movie critic Elvis Mitchell whose awkward writing and Dennis Milleresque riffing made movie reviews unreadable. (unfortunate because Mr Mitchell did have a lot of knowledge). This may be a result of the computer age but I wonder where the editors are?

Doc makes sense to me. the disease is horrible--as manifested in humans also the version in animals. I am not an animal rights person but I hate to see suffering of any kind. Hopefully, good preventative measures will be developed and a cure will be found-- It makes a lot of sense to always consider the sources of one's food. Especially, items like shellfish. Luckily I have only "encountered" a bad oyster once--the memory of that is seared into my brain!!! Yeeeow!!!

You are making too much sense. here's my "beef"-- If one goes to the web site referenced (linked) in the original post on this topic: "news@nature.com" One sees a web page listing articles. titles and verbage like: Surgery Risk from prions ..prion clusters are catching Did human remains spawn the infection...? A wolf in sheeps clothing Latest worrying research. Lab case sparks fears ..survey causes spectre..." secrets of a past prion epidemic... Wow--this is pretty serious. I better read these so I can protect myself and my family! Only--when attempting to read the actual story behind these urgent headlines--I find that I must sign up and spend seven bucks! (a month). See what I am getting at here? This stuff is the same as the dire warnings like: "your non stick pan may be killing you and your loved ones--tune in to twenty twenty at ten!" I am not sure who is more guilty--me for not shelling out seven bucks to save my family or the folks at news at nature dot com for charging people for information they obviously feel would save lives!? Seriously, maybe the articles present a sane and balanced perspective on a troubling topic. But forgive me for being just a bit skeptical of things. Yes there is a link to a paper on prions that is only a part of an ongoing review by the scientific community that is important and has and will continue to yield some conclusions that will help all of us understand the prion issue better and make informed decisions. It is important to keep some basic facts in mind and to apply common sense and perspective. I would recommend that people go to the CDC web site where one will get good information (all of it for free). Also the posts by PatrickS in this and other threads (mad cow, teflon etc) which are loaded with facts and rational thinking. It is good to be concerned and even better to be informed. most of all-healthy skepticism is important especially when dealing with the media. It is a shame when a place like eGullet provides better factual information and more rational debate and resultant insight on a food/health related topic than ABC News given their resources and huge audience). (probably the reason--I bet-- eGullet and other internet based locales are growing faster than ABC News). Anyway--that's my "beef"--which reminds me--I am going to enjoy a rack of venison this weekend which I am doing because Morgan Spurlock showed what happens when you eat too much of one thing and I had beef twice this week already. Don't worry--the other four days-I am having pasta and vegetables and lots of salads and fish. I wish I knew who said: "Too much of a good thing...." Now there's something that makes sense!

If you want to get really paranoid, think about this: Prions are not destroyed by cooking or by detergents. It takes a temperature of well over 1000 degrees F to make them inactive. There are documented cases of people being infected from surgical instruments which were autoclaved but not sufficiently cleaned. So if you go to a place that serves venison, and if the venison has prions and if it is communicable to humans (okay, 3 big ifs), you could be infected even if you don't order any venison, from prions which were on the frying pans or other cookware used to prepare your meal. Does that keep me away from restaurants that serve venison? Not necessarily. But I'm paranoid enough to think of it and take it into consideration... ← You are more likely to be seriously injured sick or die: 1--taking a shower that AM 2--walking or driving to the restaurant 3--eating those oysters as a first course 4--eating the salad with sprouts than you are encountering prions in you venison getting sick and dying. prions have been around for quite a while--so have deer. we have been eating deer for a long time. where are all the deaths? per the CDC there is no cause and effect here only a suspicion. It is a good thing that the prion issue is being studied and that the CDC has cautioned hunters and people who eat wild game (most of us eat farmed). and yes there is a conspiracy (of sorts). Special interest groups conspiring with media outlets to frighten the public.

Ya know doc, You are right--The Bruni piece may be somewhat responsible added to the fact that there is skepticism in the media whenever any new ambitious venture opens here in New York. Remember the press pre and post opening for Ducasse, also for Per Se (could Keller pull it off--in a mall yet?") and more recently the Del Posto stuff? Look what they did to Rocco! (look what Rocco did to himself). However--as I noted earlier--The Post gave Gilt a pretty good review. (with the Times losing some local impact as they try to go national-- the Post seems to be moving upmarket ). ....and posters here have been complimentary. Liebrandt does seem to have gotten his act together and deserves a shot at stardom so hopefully..... In the end--time will tell.