Somehow we've gone from this . to this The latter completely dismisses the original intent of this thread which was to discuss whether writers/food critics etc in general, have an obligation to disclose. This whole argument is nothing but a perception issue. If you perceive Steven or anyone else has not made a full and proper disclosure then that perception is your reality and no one else's. Don't read their reviews then. I read plenty of food reviews I don't agree with. Sammy is trying "catch" Steven out by suggesting he didn't disclose something he felt he should have. Sammy is certainly entitled to feel that way, but I just don't think a whole thread on whether Steven did or did not is relevant. As an example yes, but really, Steven is the only one being put on the hot seat here. As far as I can tell, Jason asked the question, Steven answered it. He did not try to hide the fact. I eat at Ruth's Chris probably 4 or 5 times a month. The General Manager is a good friend of mine as is her husband who owns his own restaurant and the Chef at Ruth's. If I'm paid to write a review about it, that then becomes my job and I take a step away from the relationship. No different than my relationships with my co workers or staff in and out of the office. One is a business relationship, but if we go out to socialize, it becomes a different relationship. I can keep the two separate. I suggest to you that food writers/critics whatever have the ability to keep that separation. If they can't, they shouldn't be in the job. Maybe Steven should have just said, "Yes the guy's my agent, I didn't think it was relevant. My apologies if you think it is". This was a great debate until it became personal.