Jump to content

Scott

participating member
  • Content Count

    983
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Location
    London
  1. To be fair putty man you also argued that people have less opinions about food than before. which is certainly a curious take given the huge increase in blogs, and food related twitter activity
  2. No, I don't think its ok to try and brush this aside. its very relevant (inconvenient) to the point in hand * sorry if I seem a bit fired up, but I think the blogger/pr nexus is a massive issue right now. There's huge hypocrisy around this at the moment, and that is at the heart of the whole #chefsunite nonsense
  3. By & large agree. Problem is bloggers are often attracted by the promise of freebies & superior access. What has gotten lost is that its only the quality of the commentary that matters, not just that you made the effort. I am not defending Isherwood but why would he risk his credibility lying about paying for the meal. Here is his quote "He mentioned I was given freebies, but I'm wise enough to know these were amuse bouches - they even appeared on the pre-printed menu they gave to me at the end of the meal " This never ending accusation that bloggers get free meal after free meal is pure fiction especially from my point of view. In all of my years of dining I have only ever received five in decades, and we eat out an awful lot. I for one would be very interested if people would name and shame those bloggers who receive these financial incentives. It would help clear up these never ending accusations. After much annoying innuendo The Critical Couple now put a disclaimer on their site. Hang on David - I'm not saying all do but someone did bring up the point of the Cube on twitter - hardly anyone paid for that! Quite so - and how many people disclaimed whether it was a freebie? I did on my blog and yet you didn't mention in your faux indignation post above about how its so unfair to bloggers So do you follow jay rayners policy of not accepting free dishes, announcing your visits, or anything designed to ensure you get a better than usual experience? It is not acceptable to hold both positions, one or the other please.
  4. By & large agree. Problem is bloggers are often attracted by the promise of freebies & superior access. What has gotten lost is that its only the quality of the commentary that matters, not just that you made the effort. I am not defending Isherwood but why would he risk his credibility lying about paying for the meal. Here is his quote "He mentioned I was given freebies, but I'm wise enough to know these were amuse bouches - they even appeared on the pre-printed menu they gave to me at the end of the meal " This never ending accusation that bloggers get free meal after free meal is pure fiction especially from my point of view. In all of my years of dining I have only ever received five in decades, and we eat out an awful lot. I for one would be very interested if people would name and shame those bloggers who receive these financial incentives. It would help clear up these never ending accusations. After much annoying innuendo The Critical Couple now put a disclaimer on their site. Hang on David - I'm not saying all do but someone did bring up the point of the Cube on twitter - hardly anyone paid for that! Quite so - and how many people disclaimed whether it was a freebie?
  5. Plus the chance to do a bit of Food Bragging to their friends. Some diners get quite sycophantic about the celebrity chef dining scene - it is like collecting Michelin stars are the new cigarette cards. Exactly right - does anyone think isherwood wasn't giving it all that to his date trying to impress?
  6. He doesn't have *ANY* credibility to risk FFS!! He's a guy whose blog had less than 10 entries - its brand new. And on the freebies, like the flip flop on whether he went into the kitchen the amuse bouche line is something he settled on a day or 2 after the argument. I was involved in the original, real time exchanges and despite the subsequent deletions i am very well aware of the original claims & statements. Oh and he's not wise enough about anything, he's the rankest of amateurs. Right on the lowest, least experienced tier - which is fine but don't be taken in by a rapid journalist lead reinvention Plus comp'd dishes usually appear on the bill for no charge as part of stock control and the order to kitchen process Its never ending because like big brother contestants, the desire for freebies is common. Its one of the things that upsets chefs, how often & fervent the entitlement complex is. as for your own situation: - do you speak with PR? - do you contact a restaurant beforehand to announce your upcoming visit? - do you send back comped unordered dishes? Perhaps you should draft & outline a personal code of conduct for your blog so readers & chefs know exactly where you stand on these subjects? Always pay, no extra dishes, no PR etc much like Jay Rayner has been calling for in the last few days. He's made the point that he does just this, nothing extra, no freebies, books himself etc Nearly every major wine critic does this also, so their integrity can never be questioned How about I take the field, and exclude by exception those who disclaim individually Quite right too.
  7. By & large agree. Problem is bloggers are often attracted by the promise of freebies & superior access. What has gotten lost is that its only the quality of the commentary that matters, not just that you made the effort.
  8. Its all to do with the disintermediation of hosted opinions on forums to people owning their opinions on blogs Informed People now by and large do 1 of 2 things: 1. Blog & tweet their own content 2. Not bother many people didnt like the way forums owned all content & its a static environment - more dynamic platforms have replaced forums
  9. Because I am australian, and I know its a complete fictional invention. And you cannot sensibly point to its rejection of starbucks when it embraces the far worse gloria jeans & hudson
  10. Steady on, he has already flip flopped a few times on his version of the facts Notice he doesn't mention the post meal tweet on how good it was, how much he'd been drinking, or how he had been denying ever having been in the kitchen (source: his tweets as it unfolded)
  11. Do you actually have any evidence for that? He has denied every being in the kitchen. He admitted he said his meal was OK when asked, as 99% of customers do. No one has mentioned "what a wonderful meal". And even if he was on a freebie (something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else) then he is still entitled to say he didn't like one part of his meal without being subjected to a torrent of abuse. Bosi's reaction was OTT, offensive and wrong; Kerridge & particularly his wife were wrong to get involved; and Bains' might have been worst of all Tristan Welch's comments weren't needed either, suggesting maybe James shouldn't write a review if he was too drunk to remember what happened it kitchen However the blogger is a clown too. He's changed his story, and told a few porkies to make sure momentum keeps going in his favour. For example he's started reinventing the content of deleted tweets, suggesting they said they were going to get a gun and come find him. This did not happen, i watched unfold live at the time. There was no suggestion of any real threat or coming to find him, its just an embellishment There are a few things we know, and isherwood doesn't come off smelling of roses either. - he is a new food blogger of very modest knowledge & writing ability - he met Bosi at the cube and made introductions & entreaties about interviewing him - Bosi invited him to hibiscus, and they exchanged a number of messages to set things up (cannot comment on Whether freebie or not) * worth noting Bosi was aware that "dining with james" had only a handful of posts, was written by someone just starting out with little real knowledge, but plenty of enthusiasm. I think he was generous in his time, and was trying to help the guy out, give him a leg up. - the meal happened - extra courses were sent - he was invited into the kitchen after and went (both sides acknowledge this). - Bosi claims he asked how it all was (of course, its not credible after all the pre-amble msgs etc to believe he didn't enquire) and that he was told it was all great - Isherwood tweets afterwards to Bosi about what a great time he and his (first) date had * footnote James first denied going into kitchen, then suggested bosi didn't ask how it was, then accused claude of deliberately lying about asking him, and has now finally settled on the story that he was in kitchen, was asked, and only said it was fine because he was put on spot and didnt want to cause a scene in front of his date. Nb tweet after meal gushing about great it was - published review and posted on trip advisor (very low quality review. Clumsy & badly written with a bitchy final slap in face suggesting it wasn't really a 2* meal like wareing or the ledbury). - Bosi sees it on trip advisor, flips and thinks this young guy he was trying to help has just kicked him in balls; especially seeing how he sucked up at the cube, in email & in the kitchen afterwards - other chefs frustrated with idiot bloggers themselves pile in and ultimately start bullying this one guy James Isherwood clearly didn't think he was doing anything wrong, and almost certainly didn't mean to. His problem is that he's an idiot himself, and thought he had an obligation to tell it like it is, and that Bosi should respect that as a peer. He was ultimately too inexperienced to realise that you can't buddy up to a volatile chef, take all the benefits, and then bite the hand that has literally fed you. He is quite simply a tosser, but not the only one in this situation And what's more he has gotten to liking his 15mins...
  12. Where did this great lie that OZ & NZ had some big coffee culture come from?
  13. Of course a coffee snob wouldn't dream of adding milk to their espresso
  14. no problem. My issue is that I don't think you have actually said anything. In fact it appears you have gone out of your way to avoid doing so. Conspicuously. Gosh, I am not even sure you are serious? aesthetic qualities are always a function of their time, and it would be true to say the highest value is ascribed to those qualities that endure, fine art being an easy example. However, just as shakespeare and puccini were considered mindless dross, pop of their time, it is not necessarily fixed in stone either. Nor is it true that something cannot have ever been good if it has been superceded, if times have moved on or if the audience has changed taste or become more informed/sophisticated over an observed period. The difference between the historical & the contemporary is often evolution. If you would like to deny evolution I am sure there are no end of wonderful places to express that
×
×
  • Create New...