rich

Now that comment is, at best, "out of touch." Steve, your're taking things out of context. Your examples about news stories about sex scandals are just that - news stories. I'm sure we can find some of the same type of reporting about the Clinton/Lewinski matter. What we're talking about here is the type/hype of coverage these stories get - the double-meaning headlines, the photos, the slideshows (the latter obviously didn't exist in the 50's or 70's). Would the Times of 1997-8 have printed photos (if they existed) of Clinton/Lewinski having sex in the Oval Office? Would the NY Post? I think the answer is no and yes. Today I think the answer would be yes and yes. If you don't believe this is a crisis period for the Times with respect to ethics, or the death throws of a newspaper in critical condition, there's no more I can say. You continue to read the paper through rose-colored glasses, I will read it for what it's worth - and you already know my view on that.

I understand... and many others.

John, you see it that way because that's the way it is - sophomoric at best, self-serving at worst. The Times has become a parody of itself. A once meaningful, liberal-oriented newspaper with a sometimes keen insight on the substantive issues of the day, it has become no more than a sensationalist tabloid with a flare for the absurd - and nothing exemplifies that better than the Dining Section. I agree with your entire statement.

Nice looking bread Ann - special recipe? What did you use for the sauce?

Just noticed this thread is just a few days away from reaching the one million mark in hits. Can the system handle seven digits? (Room for the number appears limited.) Or will it revert to one?

If that's true, how does he justify making himself part of all his "investigative reports?" An investigative reporter is supposed inform the readers of a breaking story and should never be part of it. Yet this "IR" always places himself (and his friends) in the middle of the story and opines about various things from the food to music, to bathrooms, to nipples, to owners/chefs private lives etc. "IRs" don't give opinions, they just relate facts. It blows the whole theory of the Robert's review being funny and entertaining out the window. "IRs" by definition can't be either - they're supposed to uncover heretofore unknown facts and report such. Either the Times or the reviewer is being disingenuous here. And more importantly, they caused PL to change their whole approach to dining. PS - I can hardly wait for the review on the Greenwich Village Taco Bell/KFC - since he's an "investigative restaurant reporter," it now becomes imperative he reviews the place. He has no choice if that's how he and the Times view the job. I'm waiting...

...and it's more difficult and time consuming to prepare the small quantities necessary. - but it's fun.

I haven't posted on this thread for a while - no excuses just didn't make the time. But last evening I gave my eighth dinner party of the year - seven people total. Amuse: Carrot Shooters Peas & Carrots (two purees swiled and baked in mini square porcelain containers) Madarin Orange and Smoked Salmon Mousse (on a spoon) Scallops with Cucumber and Beet Horseradish Artichoke Toasts Poached Quail Eggs over Sherry Infused Wild Mushrooms Creamy Grits with White Shrimp Soups (served on a serve on mini cups with a holder): Frico Wafer (placed over the top) Cream of Roasted Red Bell Pepper Puree of Celery Soup Cream of Broccoli Entree: Ligonberry Stuffed Meatballs (made with beef, pork, veal) Truffled Smashed Red Potatoes Spaghetti Squash with Lemon & Capers Desserts: Lemon, Brown Sugar Challah Bread Pudding Oreo Truffles Cheese Plate Wines: Domain Mumm Grand Reserve - 1999 Domain Mumm Demi-Sec - NV Rodney Strong Carignane - 2000 Windsor Gewurztraminer - 2004 Simi Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve - 2001 William Hill Cabernet Sauvignon Gold - 1985 The evening's biggest hits were the Carrot Shooters, Peas & Carrots, Puree of Celery Soup, Ligonberry Meatballs, Spaghetti Squash and the Oreo Truffles. Everyone raved about the Wm. Hill.

I just got off the phone with a PR person from PL who has been reading this thread with interest. She told me PL was very upset by the recent Times review, which indicated Robert's steak were better. So based on the review, PL will respond in kind. Beginning April 1, there will be a change in customer service at the Brooklyn PL (the feeling was the Long Island branch is too family-friendly). PL has made an exclusive deal with Playboy and Playgirl (Penthouse's biggest rival) to provide models for the customer's entertainment. Both the male and female models will be asked to perform in the back room of the restaurant and customers wishing to participate will be charged an extra $50 for their beefsteak. Since this is multi-gender entertainment, PL is hoping to attract more couples then now visit Robert's. In addition, all waiters will be wearing g-strings as part of their uniform. Anyone (either gender) wishing to see or touch the string will pay a $25 surcharge that will be shown on their bill as a "service charge." As a special, each Wednesday at 10pm, five waiters will be chosen at random to work the rest of the evening clad in just the aforementioned g-string. Also, PL has hired a new host and hostess that will walk everyone to their table and offer a free cocktail to anyone odering the special of the evening. These full-time employees will be clad in see-through tunics and nothing else. One of the problems that needed to be resolved was the wooden tables. Most of the models complained of splinters during a rehersal last evening (after closing time). So PL hired professional "buffers" to smooth the worker's environment. Further, PL is still negotiating with the NY Times for a full review and exclusive rights to an interactive slideshow that will include private phone numbers of the models based on the viewer's credit rating. There is also talk of the Times putting mpeg movies on its site. Finally, PL is speaking with Victoria's Secret to develop a line of clothing featuring the new uniforms - from the tunics to the g-strings and more. It is hoped the line will be featured in the NY Times fashion section. All of this will bring new meaning to the term "dinner and a show," according to PL. PS - I also heard the Times is negotiating with CBS (their polling partner) to turn the weekly restaurant review into a sitcom - the current working title is "How Deep Is My Valley." So things are looking up the for Times - maybe they're on to something.

I don't think he's promoting a personal agenda, just being funny! ←

Me too. ← See H., we can be as entertaining as the Times.

Oh, how I long for the days when a strip club was a strip club and a steakhouse was a steakhouse. ...and even more, I miss the days when the Times was the Times and the Post was the Post, but now everything's the same.

See SE, I could be your straight man too. Oops, wrong term (straight man) to use in this thread - sorry.

It took them three years to cover it as a restaurant (and they certainly have the right to wait as long as they want). However, when it was covered the first time, it was about the quality of the steaks and the Strip Club aspect was mentioned in the piece to provide responsible information and accuracy. There were no headlines, slide shows, nipple references or photos to go along with it. So three years later they decided the sex was more important - how clever of them.

By that logic, the next time (if there is a next time), very good food is served in an unlikely, "far-out" location (maybe Brooklyn ), the Times should cover it the same way. Would anyone want to bet if it has nothing to do with sex that won't be case?

And that was a very sad day for the NY Times.

True, but the sex/strip club coverage shouldn't overwhelm the reason the review (very good steaks) and that's what the Times did. ← The thing is, I think it's so odd that it should. To me, the story here is (a) very good steaks in (b) very odd surroundings with ©very high prices. To me, in making a consumer choice, "(b)" and "©" are probably more important, in this case, than "(a)". ← "B & C" are no surprise when dealing with the name Penthouse and strip club. "A" is more of the surprise.

It's not unusual behavior for a Strip Club or anything done under the Penthouse name. What's truly unusual is they serve very good food. So the emphasis should have been on the food, not the antics that are done in every strip club in the world.

True, but the sex/strip club coverage shouldn't overwhelm the reason the review (very good steaks) and that's what the Times did.

Steve, we could go back and forth like this forever. If this story was so important or "great" and so scandalous then why did it take the Times three years to cover it? News has no shelf life. This is not an event, which implies by definition a single occurrence though it may re-occur at various times or annually, ie the Kentucky Derby. This is an ongoing business concern. The Times wasn't breaking any news here. It wasn't covering a sex scandal (the Times chose not to print some of the more graphic details during the Clinton scandal) it doesn't have public relevance (the sex angle) except for those who go to strip clubs - and they did exaggerate it because it was part of the restaurant review. Nothing can change my mind about the reason for those headlines, the placement, the slide show and the photos - that's exaggeration, not a "great" story the Times just broke. I don't think it quite measures up to Watergate or even Keller opening a NY branch of the French Laundry (and the latter didn't receive that kind of exposure.) I doubt this story is Pulitzer material.

The answer I would give, Steve, is no other restaurant was ever given this type of coverage, regardless of the stars. This restaurant was given the "exposure" because of the sex angle and the sex angle alone. I think we all agree on that. And I don't think the sex angle is "human interest" in the newspaper (not tabloid) sense of the word. That they serve great steaks should be most important - that it's being done in a strip joint should be a side bar, not the glaring headline(s) and slide show. I happen to believe to exploit the sex angle is sensationalism for a newspaper - it makes it into a tabloid. I would have expected the NY Post to have covered the article in that manner. Maybe I've been deluding myself into thinking there was a difference between the Post and the Times - maybe I was wrong. At least it certainly appears that way now.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. A review of Hawaiian Tropic Zone, for example, that didn't focus on the fact that there are these female "table concierges" in bikinis who chat you up throughout your meal, etc., would be misrepresenting the experience of eating there. Imagine if a review wrote only about the food, and you went, not knowing what the place was like. You'd feel sandbagged. ← I understand your point SE (though I still believe he went way overboard in his despcriptions of the girls) and as I said that was a just minor problem for me. It was more how the Times handled it that is the issue.

I don't see any hostility toward women. I don't agree the Times made a responsible choice - not even close. It opens pandora's box on how restaurants are covered in the future - and not in a good way. I don't care how the piece was written as I have said many times in the above posts (but no one seems to listen). I may not agree with him using inside jokes about his sexuality, but that's minor. The major objection was in the manner it was covered by the Times editorial staff. And there can be no discussion or debate that they covered it as a tabloid would - that's the major problem for me. You make a statement he has/had nothing to hide. Well, I was one of the few people in the world (at least according to the posts on this thread) along with Ms. du Bois who didn't know or care about his sexual orientation. Even after reading the reviews, I still didn't know or care. I never struck me as important and I wasn't looking for anything of that nature. However, I will assume (very dangerous) at least a few other readers didn't know. If he felt it necessary to portray that in his article then why not just say something to the affect "...as a gay man I found it humorous to have half-naked women falling all over me..." Why was it necessary to use the inside jokes if there was nothing to hide?

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. A review of Hawaiian Tropic Zone, for example, that didn't focus on the fact that there are these female "table concierges" in bikinis who chat you up throughout your meal, etc., would be misrepresenting the experience of eating there. Imagine if a review wrote only about the food, and you went, not knowing what the place was like. You'd feel sandbagged. ← I agree SE - what the problem is the extent in which it was covered - by both the reviewer and more especially the NY Times. If the Topic Zone is ever reviewed, it's very important to say the waitresses are clad in bikinis. However, I don't think it would be necessary to say at times you could see "Brianna's" nipples pointing through the fabric.

In criticism, which is plainly a subjective personal opinion, the review inevitably will reflect the writer's agenda. I mean, Mimi Sheraton, Bryan Miller, and Ruth Reichl all had agendas — for good or ill — which were reflected in the very different bodies of work they produced. ← There's a big difference though Marc. They are giving you their impressions based on professional experience - any good reporter will do that. The good ones may even have an agenda to promote within their field of expertise. ie Nouvelle cuisine, Italian, more casual, more formal - that type of stuff comes out in eveyone's writing. What I was referring to - when a reporter or critic uses their medium to promote or impose an agenda that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. For example if a police beat reporter uses a story to complain about a speeding ticket she/he receieved, if a restaurant critic uses a review to promote inside jokes about their sexual orientation. And this is not the first time he has used a review to push a personal agenda. He did it with Bouley, Myers and even Chodorow. It seems part of his personality and in my opinion it's petty.