rich

And you know what Steve - he could have said all of that in the same two sentences you used in the first paragraph - and everyone in the reviewer's entire universe would have understood and been entertained. After all, I think he was named one of the top five entertainers in the world for 2006. He certainly didn't make the list as a food/restaurant critic.

That's the issue I don't understand. Are you suggesting it would have been dishonest for him not to bring up the subject of his sexuality? What does that have to do with reviewing a restaurant?[...] ← Again: It's funny! You seem to have a problem with him being out. You say "it's none of [our] damn business" and that he "impose[d] his sexuality on the public." Did he do anything sexual to you? Then how did he "impose" anything on you? If you feel hurt that he was open about his sexuality, you have remarkably sensitive feelings, and I don't think he needs to take them into account. ← Totally and completely off-base Pan. I'm not offended, hurt or sensitive about his sexuality or have a problem with him being "out." His business, his call. But restaurant reviews are not the place to promote a personal agenda. The first rule of journalism is a reporter not use his/her media outlet to "impose" or promote their personal agenda upon their audience. That's a concept you learn day-one on the job. (Obviously if the reporter is writing an editorial - and it's clear that it's an editorial - different rules apply.) I agree that the whole incident, from his inside jokes to the Times promoting of the sex angle, may be funny Pan (especially since it is the NY Times), but it's certainly not professional newspaper behavior. It's tabloid journalism at its best or worst - depending on your point of view. And if that's the road the Times chooses to travel, I wish them all the best. Maybe having two NY Posts in town will prove to be interesting. I wonder which of the two will publish the first pictures (and slide show) of Ms. Smith's autopsy photos?

...and one more point while the soapbox is still upright. If the Times' reviewer was a gay woman, would it be necessary for her to admit that and suggest she was attracted to some of the strippers? That's a very "slippery slope" we're headed down if all that is really necessary in a restaurant review.

That's the issue I don't understand. Are you suggesting it would have been dishonest for him not to bring up the subject of his sexuality? What does that have to do with reviewing a restaurant? Aside from mentioning that it was in a strip joint (and I believe it was necessary and important to do so), why did he feel the need to continue down that road? Just by mentioning that fact, people would understand where it is and they could make their choice to visit or not. What else needed to be said in a restaurant review? Being gay or straight should have no bearing whatsoever. If a straight male reviewer went, should he say he paid for three lap dances or one of the woman walked him to his car and performed oral sex? Why was it necessary to impose his sexuality on the public? If I went to Chip N Dale's because they had a great steak should I tell everyone I was straight. I hope the answer would be no - it's none of their damn business.

For the record, I agree 100% with FG. ← I don't recall anyone saying the restaurant shouldn't have been reviewed.

...or out of the NY Times, which is the same thing. PS - SE, you could be one of the best set-up men in the business - thanks.

Now there's something the Times should jump all over. Headline: "Chef's Sister Gets Private Tour of Penthouse Meat Locker." Based on the current environment, I guess that's a story for next week's food section. The slide show would be interesting as well.

Interesting they have a Gordon Ramsay available.

Actually I believe a decade or so ago Mark Strausman was the chef at Stringfellow's. Also, not exactly a strip club but related, David Burke is involved with Hawaiian Tropic Zone. ← You're right about Straussman. I'd completely forgotten about that episode (notable in many ways I'm not going to discuss now). I was wondering when someone was going to bring up Hawaiian Tropic Zone (an enterprise that -- WARNING: irrelevant statement of personal preferences coming -- I personally find more offensive [in theory -- not that I've been to either of them] than Robert's). ← However, now the precedent has been set. Any thoughts on how the Times will handle and promote that review?

Partially agree. My question is - why did this restaurant review get treated different from any other review published by the Times? - and especially that of a one-star steakhouse. The conclusion I have arrived at - because of the strip club/sex angle (gimmick). If this was another one star steakhouse without the "ambiance" it has, would it have received this type of coverage? I think the very, very safe answer is a resounding NO. Isn't it possible or likely other restauranteurs might look at this and ask "...is that what I need to do to generate that type of coverage?" If I'm not mistaken (and I apologize if I am), didn't Porter House get HALF a review for its one star? Why? - no gimmick or half-naked people asking customers if they want to be rubbed. Lastly, if this story was so important and unique, why did it take the Times three or so years to figure it out?

Rich, that's just wrong. Bruni has 33 months of reviews behind him, for a total of around 143 reviews. Exactly one had an overt sex angle.Moreover, Bruni made it clear that it's the superlative steaks that drew him there. Without that, there's no review. ← I think Rich is talking about the front page placement and the photos...not Bruni. ← Yes, I'm talking about the Times and its type of coverage, not the reviewer.

They could have been funny and entertaining is many ways. First, as many have said the steaks are top-notch, so they didn't need a gimmick. Of course I agree they had to cover the sex angle, but they didn't need to overwhelm people with it. Almost lost in the mix is that they do serve good food. Finally, think as a restaurant owner. If this is want needs to be done to get that type of coverage by the Times, then I'm going to use every gimmick I can think of. Next up - "Great Beef Cheeks Served at Chip N Dale."

You can't be serious!!!

But why give that restaurant review that treatment unless they were selling the sex angle? Steve, you can sugarcoat this all you want, but the fact remains the NY Times treated this review different than any other. So the question is why? It's not like this is a new place. It's been around for a couple of years. So why this treatment now? Why does it need this "exposure" now, as you so aptly phrased it? Of course the photos were relatively harmless as was the slide show. But they used them to sell the story. Was this so the reviewer could get his inside jokes across? What's next - a candid shot of a Hooters waitress walking away from his table? There's a substantial amount of nudity in the theater, yet the Times never publishes such photos or a slide show with the review. Lets be real - this was attempt to be more like the NY Post and National Enquirer and if that's the road the paper wants to travel, they'll find it littered with slain dragons.

Rich, I absolutely do give a damn that the current critic: A) Has very little understanding many important culinary genres; B) Is bored by, and is even hostile to, a large segment of the industry that he is supposed to cover; C) Lacks the insight, experience, or aptitude to really describe what is going on with the food; D) Is, at times, more interested in "reporting on the scene" than "writing about the food."But steak is one of the genres he really does understand. If the Times adopted FG's suggestion of dividing up the dining spectrum among multiple critics, I would have no problem at all if the steakhouses were on Bruni's beat. He gets steakhouses. And according to him (as well as a lot of other folks), one of the best steakhouses happens to be in a strip club, so he reviewed it. I think that restaurant dining is a form of entertainment. He's not reporting on the nuclear disarmament talks. It's a restaurant review, for crying out loud. I don't mind if the review is entertaining, as long as he manages, along the way, to actually cover the material (about, you know, the food) that he is supposed to cover. In this review, he basically did. Although it's a titillating story, no question about it, what I expect from the Times is accuracy. It is possible to be accurate and responsibile, but also entertaining. That's how the Times is different than the National Enquirer, which is entertaining, and that's about all. ← I guess I'm not making myself clear Marc. I don't have a problem with the review with the minor exception of some sophomoric references, but that's to be expected from the current reviewer. My problem is the manner in which the Times chose to promote it (and that has nothing to do with the critic). There's nothing wrong with the Times as a whole being more entertaining. But if it needs to revert to the oldest ploy in the world to accomplish it, that speaks volumes about the creativity level of the current editorial staff. The NY Post learned long ago that sex sells. If that's the business the NY Times wants to enter, it's their choice. But don't count me as a supporter.

...and we're not happy that we missed you either.

No argument Steve, but it still doesn't matter. I didn't realize the Times restaurant critic was allowed to use inside jokes to the gay community in the middle of a restaurant review. I guess I missed that memo. There must be a more suitable place for that discussion - but if he chose that venue and his editors allowed such, all the more power to both entities.

But you should give a damn Marc. Yes, the newspaper industry evolves and should evolve - but for the better. No one and I do mean no one who understands the industry can say this type of change in the Times is better. If they wanted to better themselves, then hire reporters who report real stories and "don't make them up," hire critics who understand the industry they're covering. If it's okay with you (this type of coverage) that's certainly your choice, but please don't try to persuade me this is better. The Times was once a truly great newspaper. That is no longer the case. The death of a newspaper should be a sad occurrence for any educated person - and in no sense can it be considered a better thing.

That's implying this type of ceverage was generated by the the sex angle. I thought the NY Times claimed they were above that type of female exploitation - and left that for the NY Post and the National Enquirer.

It makes no difference whatsoever. But I think it's unnatural not to be interested in other people's sex lives. ← I'm not even interested in my own sex life, let alone that of a tabloid restaurant critic.

I guess me and Ms. du Bois were the only ones who didn't know the NY Times chief restaurant critic was gay - and now that I know, who cares? And what difference does that make? The focus of my post yesterday wasn't on him anyway, it was on the tabloid-type journalism of the NY Times. That issue has been virtually ignored, so I presume everyone agrees with me. Since there are a lot of researchers out there, I have a few questions. My guess is Mr. Kim may be the best at answering, but if anyone knows the answers, please respond - thanks in advance. 1. When was the last time the NY Times ran a one-star review on page one of the dining section? 2. When was the last time such a story appeared in the top right column - the most important space in any newspaper? If the answer is none for one stars, how about the last time any starred restaurant received that revered spot. 3. When was the last time the NY Times ran a review with three sophomoric, high school, boys locker room-type headlines? 4. When was the last time the NY Times ran a review with a photo (color or otherwise) on the front page of a half-naked woman crawling on her knees? 5. When was the last time the NY Times ran a review with another photo (color or otherwise) on the inside of a half-naked woman leering over someone's shoulder at the dining table? 6. When was the last time the NY Times ran two photos with a one-star review? When was the last time they ran more than one photo with any review? 7. When was the last time the NY Times ran an on-line slideshow with several half-naked women and one photo of the food accompanying a resturant review? And finally... 8. When was the last time the NY Times was considered a reputable newspaper by a. anyone in the public and b. anyone in the journalism field? Bonus question - Where was I when the National Enquirer purchased the NY Times?

But you did get the slide show on-line. How could we have lived without that? Wonder what the reaction would be if Penthouse published an issue without photos of naked women, just for laughs?

Bern's and Sidebern's.

Paid a second visit last evening and it was just as good if not better than the first time. The service was terrific the food outstanding. Morandi will be on my short list of regular dining spots.

And which exact ethics rule says that a review of a steakhouse in a strip club can't be on Page 1 of the dining section? ← No ethics at all if you're the NY Post. But if you're the Times and have reserved that spot for your 4-star reviews, then what's the motivation of placing a one-star review on page one? Is it to grab readers and sell more papers with gratuitous headlines? Or is it to proclaim a great new restaurant worthy of the highest praise? Sex sells - I guess the NY Times has now decided to cash-in. Silly me, I thought they were above that. What's next? Does tomorrow's headline in the news section deal with the the body of Anna Nicole Smith?