Sneakeater

I'd go with Blue Hill over Telepan. Look at it this way: it's a consensus choice for one of the top restaurants in New York. They do a style of cooking that I don't like (and you hit the nail right on the head for the reasons). But they do it as well as it's done around here. (Actually, that's a bit of a misstatement: what they do is really unique.) Maybe you won't like it (as I don't). But given its distinguished reputation, it's worth at least trying. (In part, I'm being selfish here. If you don't like it, I won't be the ONLY contrary opinion around here when Blue Hill's praises get sung.)

Yes. Yes. Unless Ssam Bar has drastically expanded its lunch offerings (which it might have -- it's been moving in that direction), Noodle Bar remains the better lunch choice as its entire menu (I think) is available for lunch. They're both still great, BTW. Jean Georges is on Central Park. Oops. There goes the Sushi Yasuda recommendation. I'm not sure I'd call those places so "well regarded." In any event, John's doesn't do slices, and I think Lombardi's doesn't either. DiFara does slices. But as someone who loves that place, who thinks it's the best pizza I've ever had, who thinks it's about as perfect as New York-style pizza can be, I have to say that I don't think it's worth a trip. Not only will it take you a long time to get there, but in part because of the crowds it attracts but mainly because Dom is so disorganized, it takes forever to get served there. You'd have to devote an afternoon to it.

Which ones and how so? ← Nathan would say mine. Although, (a) I think amateurs are held to different standards than pros, and (b) I don't see how comp disclosures aren't curative. Nathan's more extreme position was that you almost can't ever write about anyplace you're a regular, no matter what disclosures you make.

Probably the mid-to-late 1970s.

What other area of journalism is allowed to work that way anymore? Sports used to -- but it would no longer be considered acceptable. Maybe the gossip columns. But if that's all the food blogs aspire to, then they're beneath contempt.

It's perfectly understandable that people get "captured". It's not a big personal failing. It's not the ultimate in human evil. In this context, you might even argue that it's barely consequential (except to the extent that we've all now seen the end result of our consumer culture's fixation on overconsumption, which the PR industry feeds). On the other hand, it's still a minor wrong. I just write on food boards for fun, but I try to be scrupulous in my disclosures of any potential conflict of interest. I guess you're saying that pros are held to a lesser standard. In any event, I feel a lot more loyalty to the dining public than I do to any individual blogger, and I see nothing wrong with raising this as an issue for public consumption. And I'll repeat for the umpteenth time, it's not just Josh. It's all the "professional" blogs.

OF COURSE the PR side of the restaurant industry is "against" me. They want me to spend my money on whatever it is they're paid to induce me to spend my money on. I, on the other, care about how wisely and well I spend my money. Our interests are opposed.

I'm operating under the false assumption that bloggers practice some form of journalism.

Yes, that's the way I envision them. Of course, in reality, they're adjuncts of the PR side of the restaurant industry. But I don't have to accept that. At least not without a lot of whining.

No, because he wants to write about perfectly OK food that he might be induced to make seem better than it is. Also -- and this is getting so general and hypothetical that I want it to be clear that I'm not particularly talking about just Josh anymore -- because he wants to be part of the "scene." FG, when you were in law school, did they still teach about the "capture" phenomenon -- how regulatory agencies tend to get "captured" by the industries they regulate, because the regulators end up identifying more with the industry people than with the laypeople they're supposed to be protecting? Same thing here with the food blogs.

This is essentially what I'm saying.

What you said was: To me that's a clear personal criticism and deserves either to be substantiated or retracted. ← By "in those people's pockets", I meant that because they cultivate him, he gives them favorable treatment. If it would have made you feel better for me to have said "on their laps," I'd be happy to substitute that.

Look at that list of items you published. Most of them are touts, pure and simple. I don't retract at all. You and Josh are proving my point. Josh said somewhere recently (I think it was in connection with some big food industry event in Miami or Aspen or somewhere -- I find it hard to care about those things), in defense of food blogs, that the industry doesn't always sufficiently appreciate how people like him generate excitement about places that are essentially in the business of putting chicken on plates. To me, that says it all about Josh's view of what he does. I'll repeat that I in no way mean to be criticizing Josh personally -- or even singling him out. The other professional food blogs are essentially the same.

I don't like Blue Hill personally because I personally find the food bland, and also they sous vide things sometimes in a way that, to me, makes them texturally unpleasant. I'm not saying they sous vide everything, or that they sous vide too much (they don't use that technique more than many places); rather that, to me, their (mis)use of it symbolizes what I don't like about the food at Blue Hill. I, personally, find it more virtuous than good. BUT mine is such a distinct minority opinion that I would never push it. Rather, I think Blue Hill is a restaurant you have to try. Also, the staff there is as sweet as can be. Everytime I'm there, I have an excellent time -- except for the food. PS -- I'm talking about the original NYC location (as I assume you are, since I can't believe your foreshortened timeframe would permit a schlepp up to Westchester).

As much as I don't like Blue Hill much personally, I think that's an excellent plan. I think you're right that with limited time during this visit Corton and EMP would be potentially redundant. You'd be better off visiting a completely different, highly regarded place like Blue Hill. (Also, I really want to hear what you think of it.)

I don't label Josh as an individual unethical. I label the entire "professional" blog scene questionable. How many restaurants get written about on ANY of them that don't have the "right" publicists? (Other than the Momofukus, which are their own phenomenon.)

The difference is that, for someone like Bruni, ALL they can do is give him the best possible versions of what's on their menu. They can't schmooze him or shower him with extras, because he's invested in the illusion of anonymity. He'd consider anything like that an affront. Someone like Josh they can schmooze and fuss over and do whatever they can to make him like them. On the other hand, though, note the limitation this puts on the kind of person who can be a Times restaurant reviewer: no one who's so involved with the NYC restaurant scene that they're known personally to most restauranteurs. It almost eliminates the most qualified candidates by definition.

I do want to be clear, though, Josh. Your last post clarified your position in a way that I, at least (as if you care), can respect. Thanks for the dialogue.

But doesn't your being "soigne" everywhere kind of queer the whole enterprise? Like any human being, you're susceptible to various kinds of influences. I don't even mean that particularly negatively: it's just a fact. I mean, I'd like to hang out with (the married) Rohini Dey myself. But I can't help but note that you're the only person in New York I know of who's had anything particularly positive to say about the food at her restaurant. There's some amount of peril in being a well-known bon vivant purporting to selectively write about the scene. And if you're going to respond, "so what? it's only restaurant writing", please recall that now, more than ever in our lifetimes, it really matters to people whether they get quality products in return for their money. Readers will resent being irresponsibly encouraged to spend unwisely. I'm sorry if this is coming out stronger than I intend it to. I don't mean to sound like I'm accusing you of anything horrible or anything.

When I post reviews -- which I primarily do on a board other than this one -- I make it a practice to put "comp disclosures" at the end, to let the reader know when I've received free things from the place in case that affected my judgment. Many have claimed such comps had a big effect on my love for Ssam Bar, for example -- but it was transparent, for all to see. (I think I started that after my earlier Ssam Bar write-ups, when I realized the treatment I was getting might have been affecting my judgment.) Also, it isn't necessarily clear to the reader that the "professional" blog sites (I'm not singling out any one of them) aren't meant to be "critical". They all, including Josh's, often post things that read like criticism -- including negative comments about restaurants. If Josh wants to take the position he takes, he will have to forego posting any negative commentary about places from now one. Also, I wonder about how much the choice of whom to tout gets affected simply by who chooses to provide access. I'm not saying the "professional" blogs are doing anything sinister in that regard, only that certain restaurants "buy" coverage by putting on a show for the blogs in their kitchen. Readers should be aware of that. It's not simply a focus on "the best", necessarily; rather, the most accessible.

EMP is better than Daniel. I feel comfortable saying that rather definitively. And -- unlike most people on boards like this -- I LIKE Daniel.

I don't know if Per Se cares about such things, but it could be "would appreciate the effort and would publicize it on the internet."

Degustation isn't that great for a get-together with a lot of people, since it features exclusively counter seating, which inhibits conversation among large groups. (OTOH, since it's a family get-together, maybe that's what you want.)

I think the videos on Feedbag -- and indeed almost everything on Feedbag -- are pure hype. Josh is simply in those people's pockets. If it mattered at all (which it doesn't), it would be kind of disgusting: hype masquerading as journalism (except that it isn't masquerading as journalism: it's hype masquerading as hype). (So why do we bother to read it?) (I don't mean to suggest that Josh/Feedbag is the only culprit among the "professional" foodblogs. Only that he's the most naked.)

I knew it was really close - that's why I asked the question . You know what - I may do both. I assume that Corton is the hotter ticket - so it's better to do it on Thursday (which is my husband's birthday) as opposed to Friday (which is when we will do EMP). Yes? Robyn ← Yes -- although I'm afraid you're going to find that Thursday isn't that different from Friday. Call soon.