rich

You wanna make something of it? No, I'm just jealous.

You may have felt I was implying a personal animus toward Bruni on your part. You may not have any personal animus toward him, but you have taken strong exception to his reviews. So let me rephrase my question: When is the last time there's been a main New York Times restaurant critic whose reviews you generally liked? No Michael, I knew you weren't making it personal. Generally, I liked Bruni's first two reviews - thought the Babbo was top notch except for the line about the "music as emblematic." (Still think it's a silly reason to "take away" stars, but that's another issue that has been beaten to death.) The last two reviews had serious flaws, but it had nothing to do with his opinions about the food. I generally enjoy all reviews and reviewers because I think it's fun to read other people's thoughts about restaurants. So I really can't single out any NY Times reviewer that I have liked over another in the last thirty-five years or so. Mostly, they're all the same - just a person giving their opinion about a restaurant. And you never mentioned why you were awake at 3:00 a.m.

I thought Zocalo's had decent Tex-Mex and a great spot for people watching - are they still there? The Caviarteria was my favorite, but it's closed. Good value - nice sparkling wines. If you get hungry for just a nibble, go upstairs to O's and taste the Olive Oils with some crackers or bread or "straight-up."

Just to follow up on my last post. To show how "off" Wolfgang's review was. The headline mentioned "cardiologists." This has no place in a restaurant review. If I want to read the medical/science section, I can find it myself. By the way Michael, what were doing awake at 3:00 a.m.

I don't dislike Bruni. His methodology has been off in his last two reviews, but that's as much a fault of his editors as it is his. I can't think of a reviewer that I didn't or don't like. Everyone has an opinion and I respect and listen to anyone who has been to a restaurant. My difficulities arise when they enter inappropriate areas. As you mentioned concerning my post about the politics of the NYC newspapers (even though I was just stating what is a general consensus - nothing controversial there), reviews shouldn't get into the areas of mentioning unproven allegations (Bouley review) or the cardiovascular problems related to beef (Wolfgang's review).

It's funny you should ask that. If I'm Wolfgang, I'm pretty happy with this review. Bruni praised the steaks highly ("many wonderful things at once" — "induced a kind of euophoria"). While he doled out a bit more praise for Luger's steaks, Bruni gave quite a few good reasons for diners to choose Wolfgang's: a more varied menu; a more convenient location; acceptance of credit cards; a beautiful main dining room. And lastly, Bruni gave it two stars, and there is no steakhouse in Manhattan with a higher NYT rating than that. Luger's is three stars, but not without some drawbacks. Wolfgang was clearly trying to open a Manhattan outpost that would be a credible alternative to Luger's, and this review says he succeeded. I agree OA. Wolfgang should be very happy. With all the Luger mentions, there wasn't enough space to write much criticism about the Wolf. Seriously, I'm sure Wolfgang's is a fine place and I will eat there in the near future.

From my journalism background, what you see is what you get. I have no problem with his food opinions. However, the last two reviews have had serious methodology flaws. This has been an editorial problem for the NY Times for the last several years - the paper has a terminal case of myopia.

That's neat idea, give the reviewer stars on his review: Babbo - 3.5 stars Megu - 2 stars Bouley - 0 stars Wolfgang's - 0.5 stars I'll play: Babbo - 3.0 stars Megu - 2.5 stars Bouley - 0 stars Wolfgang's - 0 stars We're very close, but I only gave him 0.5 stars for the Wolfgang review because he walked from midtown Manhattan to Williamsburg, Brooklyn. You "gotta" give the guy something for that - those are some unique neighborhoods to walk through along the way.

So now that Bruni has reviewed Peter Luger, does anyone think he will review Wolfgang's anytime soon?

That's neat idea, give the reviewer stars on his review: Babbo - 3.5 stars Megu - 2 stars Bouley - 0 stars Wolfgang's - 0.5 stars

Mike, I guess I not convinced it was a good idea. Comparing restaurants in the manner presented served more as a distraction for me. Sure, mentioning the connection is fine, but in my opinion that's where it should have ended (unless both restaurants were being reviewed). Luger was actually mentioned more than Wolfgang's. But aside from that, it's very difficult to compare a steak place that serves one cut to another that serves several. I don't see how it's fair to either place, the reader or the reviewer. If he wanted to compare two restaurants, he should have chosen the Brooklyn PL and the Long Island PL (but that would have been a longer walk) - that would have been more meaningful and I think the differences would surprise many. Finally, it's truly a shame how the NY Times editorial department has fallen on bad times and the food section has mirrored the rest of the publication. I remember when it was a good paper - probably the best in the country and arguably the world - now it would be hard pressed to make the top ten. When the NY Times "left" NYC, it pushed the city into a "newspaper void." Now we have one ultra right-wing paper (NY Post), one ultra left-wing paper (NY Times) and one paper that's not sure what it is (NY Daily News). (Newsday is another story for another time and is a Long Island paper anyway - in spite of what it tries to spin.) How I long for the days when a newspaper reported the news straight and restaurant reviews contained meaningful information on restaurants and the food they served and not unproven allegations or cardiovascular warnings.

From reading eGullet, I've come to a single irrefutable conclusion - Amada Hesser wields more power than Alan Greenspan!

As I said on the other thread, I thought the review was inspired. Let there be more like it. The chances of the Times taking a hiatus till Labor Day are about equal to the chances that I will be the next reviewer. Or even worse, about the same chances of me being the next reviewer.

I think you're being kind. As I mentioned on the other thread, I thought this review was more about Luger (mentioned 21 times in the text) and the American Heart Association than about Wolfgang's (mentioned 20 times in the text). Again as I said on the other thread, the NY Times has some issues to settle with its reviews. Maybe a hiatus until after Labor Day would be the remedy. It could start fresh with a different persepctive and purpose. Bottom line, I thought the review totally sophmoric from a journalistic view and largely uninformative from a dining point of view. However, the thought of the reviewer and his dining mate sitting there measuring the thickness of the steak and coming up with an 1/8 of an inch difference is humorous. Where did they hide the rulers when they weren't in use? Isn't that what school boys did in a high school locker room? As an aside, I know my steak at Sparks was 1/32 of an inch thicker than the one I had at Luger. No wonder why it tasted so much better.

I thought it was an interesting review of Peter Luger (mentioned 21 times in the text), but I'm still waiting on the review of Wolfgang's (mentioned 20 times in the text.) It's becoming obvious there are some very serious problems with the NY Times dining section with particular reference to the "star" reviews. Maybe a few months hiatus to clear the air - and start fresh (after Labor Day) with a different perspective would be the remedy. Most of the review was about Luger and the American Heart Association.

What seems to be lost in this thread is the journalistic content of the review. It doesn't matter much if Bouley has no stars or four stars - after all that's Bruni's opinion and he's more than entitled to it. However, from a journalistic point of view he failed on two levels: 1. Most importantly, he brought up of the Red Cross incident without any explanation or substantiation, thereby misleading readers (purposely or not, only Bruni knows that answer). That's no just bad journalism - it's yellow journalism. While I realize the NY Times' journalistic standards have dropped significantly over the last several years, allowing that to go to press is an all-time low. The editors should be embarrassed and offer a public apology to Bouley. 2. His review was mostly negative and reading it was similar to reading a one or two star review. Instead of devoting paragraphs to Bouley's passion or lack thereof or the aforementioned Red Cross incident, he should have dwelled more on the food and the positive aspects of a three-star restaurant. That is a perfect of example of not knowing/understanding/or caring about the readership - take your pick.

It may be just the way the guy turns a phrase, but I sensed a bit of disappointment on Bruni's part. A critic whose mission was to find fault but couldn't - at least not with the desserts. Excellent Holly. Beware of someone who gives a compliment in the negative.

If true, a totally defenseless position on his part. That too is Journalism 101 - I think my Philadelphia Textile theory is getting stronger.

I understand your point. But you still can't write a four-star review for a small, select client base and write a one-star review for a wider audience. After all, isn't one the the purposes of the review section is to attract new diners and maybe older diners to try new experiences and broaden their restaurant interest? I agree. But if that was the only point then we would never have re-reviews (which is a different discussion)...if Bruni only writes reviews in this fashion then we have a problem. I'm assuming that say 1 in 4 reviews will be a re-review which in my book would be fine. Okay, but I still believe he needs to stress the positive more, so the newer or more casual reader will understand that the negative is included primarily to explain the demotion.

Do you mean to say that Bouley was one of those restaurants that did not seek a four-star rating but achieved one (until today at least)? I asked that question (in general, not about any one particular restaurant) on the NYC Four-Star thread and was told (by a large majority) that you can't be a four-star unless you set out to be a four-star. Interesting thought - very interesting.

I understand your point. But you still can't write a four-star review for a small, select client base and write a one-star review for a wider audience. After all, isn't one of the purposes of the review section to attract new diners and maybe get older diners to try new experiences and broaden their restaurant interest?

I respectfully disagree. That column is read by people with only a casual interest in food and restaurants. My two brothers read it every week and I would be surprised if they knew that "Bouley" was restaurant. And if they did know, they certainly would not have known any background about the place or that it was a four-star establishment.

One of my best dining experiences was in February 1989, when my wife and I celebrated our tenth anniversary at Bouley. Unfortunately we weren't 20 or 21 year olds. But you remind me of my first fine dining experiences and there are three that stand out. For my sixteenth birthday - Aug. 4, 1966 (interesting that eGullet and I have the same birthday, albeit years apart). My parents took me to Peter Luger - that's when it was truly top notch, not the shadow of itself that it is today. As a child in the late 50's my parents took me to the Gold Coin - an outstanding Catonese restaurant on Second Avenue (51-52 Sts?). I remember seeing Lucille Ball, Bruce Morrow (Cousin Brucie) and William B. Williams eating there. I continued to dine there until they closed in the eary 80's. This was and still is my favorite Chinese (Cantonese-style) restaurant. All I had to do was walk into the Gold Coin and there was a glass of Canadian Club on the Rocks placed in my hand. And the other was taking my first serious girlfriend to Lutece in 1967. (I wasn't 18 yet, the legal drinking age at the time, but ordered a bottle of Chateaneuf Du Pape and they served me.) It was the first truly great meal I had. I know Soltner was the chef then, but I don't think he owned it until 1972.

Just to play Devil's advocate for a moment... isn't this somewhat inevitable? I mean, Bruni was saying that Babbo was designed for three stars and is achieving very near the pinnacle of what it is to be a three-star restaurant. Bouley, on the other hand, was designed for four stars and is substantially underachieving in some key areas (not too many people seem to be disputing that Bouley has fallen off the four star mark). This equals mostly praise of Babbo and mostly criticism of Bouley. If you're just writing to foodies such as us, this may have some validity, but not if it's going to the general public.

If the facts turned out to be true, then yes (as in the Ruggiero situation) they should be included. But Bouley was exonerated. The accusations were false. I don't think they should have been included at all. But, if included, a journalist MUST say that as well.