I'm self-appointed, you're self-appointed

[Miami Danny]

Online writers are accountable to NO ONE.  That is why there are so many of them (and so many bad ones). Also, EVERY blogger (including me) can modify comments, and so can EVERY food board (including this one).  To pretend otherwise is either ignorance or disingenuousness. 

←

Your post demonstrates the fallacy of your argument: you've just had your chance to hold me accountable. You happen to be wrong, you happen not to have made a persuasive argument, but you've had your say. Did anybody edit your post? Of course not.

Meanwhile, I've had many letters to the editor published in newspapers, including the New York Times. Every single one of them has been edited. I've never heard of a letter to the editor being published in a newspaper without some edits. In many cases I've felt that the edits made to my letters have weakened them substantially.

So, first of all, newspapers have just as much editing ability as websites and, second, newspapers routinely exercise that editing ability whereas in my experience -- which is extensive -- websites rarely do. Most websites simply do not edit posts or blog comments for content. They may delete ones that are beyond the pale -- as they should -- but they don't go in and change content the way newspapers almost always do.

←

You are saying that because ONE post in this topic right now was unedited that therefore NO posts have ever been edited or deleted on this OR ANY board? I had a very mild post deleted just the other day-but how would anyone, other than a moderator or host even know? You are simply taking advantage of the fact that many people do not know or care how boards work, and how 'comment moderation' works. I too have had letters to the editor published in the Times, and they were edited, as are my comments here, sometimes for the better, quite frankly. Perhaps the same goes for you. "To pretend otherwise is either ignorance or disingenuousness." Are you pleading ignorance?

[Peter Green]

Putting aside the amusing issue of Fat Guy "appointing" and/or "anointing" people, there are two serious issues here, those of accountability and of professionalism. 

Those who have received the appropriate position from their editors do have accountability - to their readers, to the restaurants they are reviewing, to their editors, and to their publications.  Fall short of one of those and you'll get a reprimand, fall short of two at the same time and you'll receive a warm handshake as you make your way out of the door.

As to professionalism - I am the first to grant that the un-appointed critics can be thoroughly competent.  I am also the first to admit that not all professionals are competent.  Again though we return to issue one - that of accountability.  The blogger is accountable to no-one unless, he/she wanders into those horrific realms of libel, slander and, of course plagiarism.

←

Darn! I missed by a day. I had a great tagline just now of "self-appointed, or self-anointed?" after which I was going to go into a Jean Le Baptiste shtick.

I would take umbrage with the use of the term "professional". Too often it has been hijacked to describe someone who does something for money (as in "the oldest profession").

Consider the roots of the word. "To profess", as opposed to "to confess". To put forward that you believe firmly that you can deliver a quality product (and we can spend pages on quality, I know). I was trained and disciplined to be an engineer. Talking with the older (and, admittedly Irish) profs we had at the time, that was much akin to entering the priesthood. Money was not the object, but the dedication of oneself to doing the best job possible (not your personal best, but "the best").

Take that as the marker. There are people that approach the issue of a food review with far greater discipline than many of us would, and that is the mark of professionalism.

It is a fair comment for us to question our commitment. If I'm in a foreign country for two weeks, will I do three trips to the same place to ensure that I didn't catch them on a bad night? Maybe not (but would I do two or three trips to recapture a good night?). Maybe I'd make do on polling the locals I know (if I can trust them).

There will always be a dichotomy between those that are paid to do something, and those that do it for love.

And so we return to the oldest profession.

[Peter Green]

Hah! I jumped in early and missed the accountability arguement.

A food writer is accountable, in the main, to two groups.

His or her readers, who, hopefully, will raise the standard in their support (or pillory them mercilessly).

or

The marketing folks who want to see hotels and restaurants paying for ad space.

I have some friends who are editors on entertainment rags. I suspect you can guess which group has the bigger clout.

Cheers,

Peter

[Fat Guy]

You are saying that because ONE post in this topic right now was unedited that therefore NO posts have ever been edited or deleted on this OR ANY board?  I had a very mild post deleted just the other day-but how would anyone, other than a moderator or host even know?  You are simply taking advantage of the fact that many people do not know or care how boards work, and how 'comment moderation' works.  I too have had letters to the editor published in the Times, and they were edited, as are my comments here, sometimes for the better, quite frankly.  Perhaps the same goes for you.  "To pretend otherwise is either ignorance or disingenuousness."    Are you pleading ignorance?

←

I think the choice here may actually be between disingenuousness and delusion. Every single post of yours that's on this website is exactly as you posted it, without a word changed by anyone but you. The claim that we've made such changes is false. But still, you're being allowed to make the claim -- something you'd never be allowed to do by a print publication, which would just toss all such unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in the garbage never to see the light of day. Yes, you've had (a minuscule number of) posts removed over the years, all for good reason, all painstakingly explained to you, and never because you made an argument someone disagreed with. As I already said, websites do and should remove posts that violate their rules or the law. But you've never had your words edited. Nobody here is hiding from your arguments, false though they may be, as this exchange again demonstrates.

[racheld]

Our one newspaper had an absolutely abysmal "critic" for several years. I'm fond of reviews and critics and all that, and was delighted just to live in a town WITH a newspaper, but he just WASN'T making it fun.

So I called the editor. I told him how disappointing it was, week after week, to turn to such drivel.

Holding my lower jaw WAY forward like that awful deb in Auntie Mame, I said something like, "It DOES appear that a publication with your credentials could afford a restaurant reviewer who has SOME appreciation of ambience or sauces or wine.

'My wife had the fish. I had the steak. She liked hers. I didn't like mine. We spent eighty dollars' is NOT an acceptable review, and I'm surprised that with his recognition factor, restaurants don't turn him out or poison him when he appears. You can do better, though I don't think HE can."

Somehow, we had a new reviewer within a couple of weeks, a sharp young woman who writes well and knows her business.

I will not run, nor will I serve if elected. But thank you for the great honor.

[nibor]

Would someone please explain to me why this is a contentious topic? I see all sorts of hackles up and don’t understand why.

[Miami Danny]

You are saying that because ONE post in this topic right now was unedited that therefore NO posts have ever been edited or deleted on this OR ANY board?  I had a very mild post deleted just the other day-but how would anyone, other than a moderator or host even know?  You are simply taking advantage of the fact that many people do not know or care how boards work, and how 'comment moderation' works.  I too have had letters to the editor published in the Times, and they were edited, as are my comments here, sometimes for the better, quite frankly.  Perhaps the same goes for you.  "To pretend otherwise is either ignorance or disingenuousness."    Are you pleading ignorance?

←

I think the choice here may actually be between disingenuousness and delusion. Every single post of yours that's on this website is exactly as you posted it, without a word changed by anyone but you. The claim that we've made such changes is false. But still, you're being allowed to make the claim -- something you'd never be allowed to do by a print publication, which would just toss all such unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in the garbage never to see the light of day. Yes, you've had (a minuscule number of) posts removed over the years, all for good reason, all painstakingly explained to you, and never because you made an argument someone disagreed with. As I already said, websites do and should remove posts that violate their rules or the law. But you've never had your words edited. Nobody here is hiding from your arguments, false though they may be, as this exchange again demonstrates.

←

First, please let me say unequivocally that I never claimed anyone here edited my posts, other than deleting them , which is pretty much editing down to nothing, which, as I stated, I don't have a problem with , and sometimes even appreciate, just like when my print editor edits me, or decides not to run one of my columns. Your argument is not with me, but with the fact that many blogs and boards DO edit or delete (not publish) comments, at their discretion (or whim), which is exactly what I posted, and which you chose not to address. The idea that print publications are the big bad wolf and that web-based journalism is somehow more pure is an argument anyone can care to make. That, however, was not my argument. Edited October 30, 2007 by Miami Danny (log)

[Jmahl]

Dear FG:

I want to be appointed or annointed - whichever you think is approprate.

Qualifications, I have been eating more or less some sixty years. I have been cutting and burning myself in the kitchen for almost that long. I am highly educated - more than 19 years formal education. I am qualified to appear before the highest court in the land. ( that means the world, no?)

So appoint me critic at large or something. You have the power - use it.

Enjoying the reparte.

Jmahl

[ludja]

My current quote:

"We watched him use his spoon to mold the mashed potatoes on his plate into the shape of a volcanic mountain. He poured gravy ever so carefully into the opening at the top. Then he set to work ridding his steak of fat, veins and other imperfections. It occurred to me that eating is the only form of professionalism most people ever attain."

-- Don DeLillo, 1985 "White Noise"

This does not really address the heart of this discussion but I thought it was an interesting observation...

[-sheila mooney]

No need to go into the basement. I provided a link to the story in my first post. But the issue is the use of "self-appointed" in the headline, and the repetition of the "self-appointed" mantra in various other stories, as well as related distinctions like "professional" versus "amateur" and "credentialed" versus "uncredentialed" none of which hold up particularly well under scrutiny.

- how do those terms not hold up under scrutiny? i sense some tendentiousness here. try this test: ask a normally intelligent person not involved in this polemic.

I have no idea what a "credentialed journalist" is, nor do I know what it means that rebuttals were "taken seriously." Does "taken seriously" mean they were published? Does it mean the writers were fired? If not, what impact is there to taking such things seriously, other than making serious faces and nodding a lot?

i am quite certain you are not unintelligent, so i will assume you are playing the sophist when you say you "have no idea" and "do not know" what these simple concepts mean. i am less certain why it's such a big deal to you. some folks are welders, some folks are foodies, some folks are credentialed journalists... and geez, by the way, i feel kind of bad that when i say (ok, implied) that i took something seriously, a person who has no knowledge of my life or professional habits would impugn that. all for a rant?

[Fat Guy]

Then perhaps you would be so kind as to define "credentialed journalist" for us.

[cdh]

Indeed. The concept of "credentialed journalist" is a problematic one. Were such a thing to exist, then such things as licensure and regulation might be applied, neither of which is exactly congruent with our First Amendment. Other countries do, in fact, credential their journalists, and those places are considered to have a much less free press than we do.

Credentials in journalism may be earned through practice, but the right to practice should not be conditioned on credentials.

The appropriate credentials to be a food journalist should be wide experience with foods, and a capability of putting words together in a way that others understand and enjoy reading. Neither of those is exclusive to reporters who work beats.

Edited October 30, 2007 by cdh (log)

[Miami Danny]

A credential is an attestation of qualification, competence, or authority issued to an individual by a third party with a relevant de jure or de facto authority or assumed competence to do so.

Whether or not the 'credential' has any value is certainly open to discussion, but what a credential is , is less so.

[cdh]

You really think that dictionary boilerplate applies to journalists?

[slkinsey]

So, what you're saying then is that there is no such thing as a "credentialed" journalist?

Anyway, the American Heritage Dictionary says:

Usage Note: The use of the participle credentialed to refer to certified teachers and other professionals is well established (She became credentialed through a graduate program at a local college), but its more general use to mean "possessing professional or expert credentials" is still widely considered jargon. The sentence The board heard testimony from a number of credentialed witnesses was unacceptable to 85 percent of the Usage Panel.

Of "credentialed journalists" wikipedia says:

Some countries impose restrictions on who may work for the press or in a journalistic capacity, and require that anyone allowed to do so carry a government-issued credential. This allows these countries to exert a substantial amount of control over freedom of the press, by selectively granting, withholding, and withdrawing press credentials.

Some government and non-government entities may also require or issue specific credentials of or to persons wishing to interact with them in a journalistic capacity.

This may be done to control the dissemination of information about the entity, to ensure favorable reporting, to limit the number of persons acting as press, and so on. These credentials are often independent of any government credentials, although some entities will accept government credentials as a justification for their own, or in lieu of their own.

In the United States, for example, no national press credential exists because it has been held to violate the freedom of press provisions of the country's constitution, but individual government entities (such as the White House and the military) and many non-government entities issue and require press credentials for their own spheres of influence.

This suggests to me that there is no such thing as a "credentialed journalist" in the United States. What would that mean anyway? If the East Pawtucket Bugle hires someone to be a "reporter" or "critic" for their does that make this "credentialed journalist" more legitimate than Andrea Strong?

[Miami Danny]

You really think that dictionary boilerplate applies to journalists?

←

Does the definition of a word somehow not apply to journalists? Edited October 31, 2007 by Miami Danny (log)

[HVRobinson]

Interesting read so far. Bottom line is... a food critic is somebody who writes about food. Period. Now the heart of the question is really how to distinguish a competent critic from the usual Bozo. If you look at the early films (they really weren't tapes) of Julia Childs in the kitchen... she really wasn't a spectacular cook or teacher. It took her a while to find her voice and her venue. Why should it be different for any food writer? What is the credential? In my eyes it is earned by pounds of reviews published, by requests to compile guides, to speak to groups, to teach, to share the joys of gastronomy, of service and hospitality. A food writer does not need to be a good cook... but should be able to speak knowledgeably about the food in a correct context. As for who appoints, anoints, blesses, elevates or dashes upon the rocks the writer... that would be us. We have the voice to review the reviewer. We can take a pompous ass down a peg or two, or we can thank the skilled wordsmith for their contributions. If you don't like it... you have a few options... do a better job, don't support it, or bitch loudly. Two of these are constructive.

hvr

[Miami Danny]

Interesting read so far.  Bottom line is... a food critic is somebody who writes about food.  Period.  Now the heart of the question is really how to distinguish a competent critic from the usual Bozo.  If you look at the early films (they really weren't tapes) of Julia Childs in the kitchen... she really wasn't a spectacular cook or teacher.  It took her a while to find her voice and her venue.  Why should it be different for any food writer?  What is the credential?  In my eyes it is earned by pounds of reviews published, by requests to compile guides, to speak to groups, to teach, to share the joys of gastronomy, of service and hospitality.  A food writer does not need to be a good cook... but should be able to speak knowledgeably about the food in a correct context.  As for who appoints, anoints, blesses, elevates or dashes upon the rocks the writer... that would be us.  We have the voice to review the reviewer.  We can take a pompous ass down a peg or two, or we can thank the skilled wordsmith for their contributions.  If you don't like it... you have a few options... do a better job, don't support it, or bitch loudly.  Two of these are constructive.

hvr

←

If 'bitch loudly' means what we're doing here, then I think only one of them is constructive.

[ruthcooks]

My daughter once called me a "self-appointed food expert" and she didn't mean it in a nice way.

Please add my name to the list of people who want to be appointed.

Actually, I would like my "certificate" to be carved in stone, if possible. and a "So there!" added at the end.

[Fat Guy]

I've been thinking about this issue of me handing out appointments, and I think there may be a more legitimate way of doing it than just having me bestow bogus credentials. Rather, I'm going to get with my colleagues here at the Society and we're going to publish a list of guidelines -- things like if you get a comped meal you have to disclose it in your writing (basically, the guidelines our volunteers are already required to adhere to) -- and if you sign off on those guidelines you'll be able to display a credential in your eG Forums posts as well as on your blogs and elsewhere. This will take a little while to engineer, but I'll note it here when we're ready to roll.

[Lesley C]

I did not run write that piece in the Gazette, but I am the Gazette’s restaurant critic.

As someone who has so-called “credentials” (with certain people at least) I can say that yes, they make a difference. I think you have to have spent at least some time in a professional kitchen to understand how a restaurant works. Yet ultimately experience on the beat is what makes a critic worthwhile. It takes a while to get good at this, and there’s something to be said for tasting most every risotto in the city before evaluating yet another.

I know of no bloggers in my city who eat out frequently enough to have a strong grasp of the scene. I wouldn’t have thought that when I started out, but after eight years at it, I understand that longevity is a critic’s true strength, seeing restaurants come and go, watching chefs evolve, determining whether international trends are influencing the scene, etc.

Many bloggers I read tend to head out to the “branché” restaurants and post the occasional review when they’re up to it. I have to go everywhere, 50 weeks a year, and I eat a lot of seriously lousy meals. And those lousy meals are important because they make me appreciate the good ones all the more.

I recently interviewed two of Montreal’s best food bloggers, whose focus isn’t so much on restaurants as food culture. To my surprise they told me their ultimate goal was to switch to print. And an excellent sommelier and wine blogger, Bill Zacharkiw, was recently named the Gazette’s wine columnist. He hasn’t posted an entry in his blog since the paper published his first column.

(The flip side to this is that every food writer I know is now panic-stricken about getting some kind of web presence going, mainly the almighty blog.)

As for restaurant critic requirements and credentials, I know many restaurant critics, some with extensive professional cooking credentials who are eyebrow-raisingly corrupt, some with no credentials (and it shows), and some who are respected more for their writing than their opinion. But at the very least, shouldn’t the public be reading a review by someone with some expertise in the field rather than someone who just loooves to dine out? Music critics need not be musicians, but if they are just music lovers why would anyone who shares their level of interest care what they have to say?

Of course, there's the way you say it.

As Jay Rayner writes on the Guardian blog regarding this topic, “The fact is that newspaper restaurant critics are not employed to sell restaurants. They are employed to sell newspapers, and what editors therefore need from us is the ability to write a readable, entertaining column week in week out. Food knowledge or an understanding of restaurants comes a distant second.”

So I guess that’s why Rayner runs his menacing mug next to his posts, as if he’s saying, screw all the formalities, we’re really just here to be outrageous, strut our stuff and give people something to talk about at the pub. OK, but if you’re going to do that, why even use the review as a backdrop? Why not just run a Dave Barry-style column? I bet Dave Barry sold a lot more papers than Giles Coren.

Ultimately, a reviewer should A) be an entertaining writer -- a la A A Gill or Alan Richman -- in order to get those papers moving B) have some cooking background to gain a minimum of respect from the foodies and the chefs C) have experience on the beat to really understand the scene D) not be corrupt (whatever that means on any given day in the restaurant world). Tall order, it seems, but look at the best in the business and you’ll see that’s just what they’re doing.

More power to ‘em, I say, whether it be on a blog or in print.

[Daniel Rogov]

I am 100% behind what Lesley C. wrote above concerning the qualifications of the restaurant critic. In fact, that post made me realize that "accreditation" may be the wrong word – perhaps what we should be looking at is the question of "qualifications".

First of all, accreditation smacks just a bit too much of forming a guild, and as is well known, all guilds eventually turn self-protective and a good deal of their effort is towards blocking out those not already "in". Guilds also lead to a form of elitism of which we have suffered too much in our lives at any rate. Second, as is well known, any form of accreditation requires a committee. The logical question that then arises is: "Who accredits the accreditors?"

With regard to qualifications, I would propose as a minimum the following:

(a) The love of dining out and the sense of optimism that must precede all criticism. People who hate restaurants should not be restaurant critics!

(b) A large and ever growing repertoire of experiences in dining out. People who dine out twice a month are not qualified to be critics. They are, of course, entitled to their opinions but have too small a repertoire to make valid comparisons.

© A discerning palate and the ability to make valid comparisons between various dining experiences

(d) A keen knowledge of what happens and what should happen both in the kitchen and in "the front"

(e) The realization that food is not merely something we eat and later eliminate but is a reflection of human history, psychology, sociology, religion, anthropology and physiology.

(f) The attainment of realistic standards – that is to say that it is not the critic's likes and dislikes that are of ultimate importance but the standards to which the dining experience adheres

(g) The ability to report and analyze without prejudice. (i.e. Whether one likes or dislikes a chef or restaurateur should have no bearing whatever on the dining experience)

(h) The ability to write in a coherent, informative manner. Whether one remains a formalist or an entertainer is much a matter of personal style. So long as the other qualifications are met, both are valid methods of criticism

(i) The knowledge that the ability to analyze and criticize is an entirely human trait and not one to be abused for personal gain, power or favor

None of the above precludes the amateur (either in the English-language sense of beginner or the French sense of "lover of") from writing. That does, however, imply that the beginner should be approaching criticism in what many philosophers have referred to as "the naïve way" – that is to say, the open and honest acknowledgement of lacking of any but the moral requirements listed above. Indeed, we all start somewhere…..and the naïve critic should never feel the least bit embarrassed to admit that he/she is just "starting out on the road". If anything such a statement is much to one's credit.

As to the moral side of criticism – for all of the discussion, there are no dilemmas. One either has or does not have and maintain integrity. More simply perhaps, one is either honest or one is not. All one has to do is acknowledge that even though the critic's major moral obligation is to his/her readers there is also a moral obligation to the restaurants that we are reviewing – and that obligation is honesty and integrity.

I am clearly not saying that all critics are wise, intelligent, honest or discriminating. What I am saying is that if we are going to read and value a critic we should know from where he/she is coming.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Fat Guy]

That list of qualifications disqualifies most professional restaurant reviewers, and qualifies plenty of online discussion participants and bloggers. Indeed, any serious list of qualifications that doesn't rely on self-fulfilling notions of print-media imprimatur is likely to exclude most of the people who have the print-media imprimatur and include many people who don't.

Still, it's a bit of a futile exercise to list qualifications when there simply are none. I'm not even sure most of the items on that list constitute qualifications. They're more like criteria. But to me, the only meaningful criterion for a restaurant reviewer is: does he or she write good reviews?

I also think if we unpack some of the qualifications on that list we find some interesting details. For example, both Lesley and Daniel have said that frequency of dining out is important. I agree that dining out a lot gives perspective, however the overwhelming majority of newspaper critics base their reviews on either one or two restaurant visits. Only the New York Times and a minuscule, elite group of publications have the budget for three or more visits. And most reviewers write one review per week. They're freelancers or reporters who cover other beats. They're not like Frank Bruni, writing reviews based on five visits and keeping an online diner's journal about unreviewed restaurants. So in total they're dining out as little as once or twice a week for their jobs.

I personally know several dozen amateurs who dine out between five and seven times a week, and a few who dine out closer to ten times a week. Not including breakfasts. The average Zagat survey participant reports dining out 3.3 times a week. On the whole, lawyers and investment bankers who are interested in food probably dine out a whole heck of a lot more than most newspapers' restaurant reviewers. They're also better-traveled, drink better wine, etc.

Moreover, very few newspaper critics come to the table with vast dining-out experience. The the extent they ever acquire such experience, it's something they acquire on the job by doing the job. If you compare newspaper critics on the day they're hired to highly involved online discussion participants and bloggers, you'll surely find that the online amateurs are vastly more experienced. That's true even at the level of Frank Bruni and his predecessor William Grimes. Eventually, they acquired inimitable experience, but the public had to endure a year or two of on-the-job learning first. That's hardly a qualification. That's just seniority, which has little to do with merit.

[Lesley C]

Steven I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about the number of times a critic visits one restaurant (which to me is often a huge waste of time) but the number of restaurants visited. Those bankers and lawyers probably aren't checking out every new place that opens as well as the old ones still hanging on by a thread , something a reviewer must do.

Also, I think your opinion is based solely on the New York scene, where people dine out A LOT. In a city like mine, I know of no one who regularly dines out five times a week.

If the New York bloggers are strong, great. But I can't say I've read any blog covering my city's fine dining beat that I consider essential reading. Interesting, yes, but essential or influential, no.

Edited November 1, 2007 by Lesley C (log)

[Fat Guy]

Steven I think you missed my point. I'm not talking about the number of times a critic visits one restaurant (which to me is often a huge waste of time) but the number of restaurants visited. Those bankers and lawyers probably aren't checking out every new place that opens as well as the old ones still hanging on by a thread , something a reviewer must do.

I think I covered both of those points: the number of visits per review and the overall number of restaurant visits per week. Most newspaper critics are dining out 1-2 times per week total for their jobs. Most newspapers budget for either 52 or 104 meals out per year for the restaurant critic. That's not a high bar for an amateur to clear.

Also, I think your opinion is based solely on the New York scene, where people dine out A LOT. In a city like mine, I know of no one who regularly dines out five times a week.

That's a misconception about New York. If we take the Zagat data as a rough guideline, New York is exactly average in terms of dining-out frequency of 3.3 times a week (that's also the US national average). Texas puts New York to shame: Houston is 4.2 times per week, and Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin/Hill Country are both 4.0 times per week. That's for people who participate in the Zagat survey, not the whole population, of course. I don't know the numbers for Montreal.

If the New York bloggers are strong, great. But I can't say I've read any blog covering my city's fine dining beat that I consider essential reading. Interesting, yes, but essential or influential, no.

←

New York has a very high degree of food-media saturation and a lot of the most widely read bloggers are professional-amateur hybrids. If you take someone like Andrea Strong, she's filing one full-length review every week, week-in-week-out, like a newspaper critic, and she's also visiting all the new places -- I imagine she's out most nights. She has also written for plenty of newspapers and magazines so she's not a pure amateur.

Marc Shepherd, who posts here as oakapple, is a real amateur, and on his blog he posts with great frequency as can be seen from the dates on his entries. He dines out quite a lot, as do many eGullet Society members who don't even have blogs -- Nathan, for example. And to touch on an earlier point, these people most certainly are visiting the new and the old.

This is not, however -- at least not to me -- an empirical examination of the quality of blogs (or the much more embarrassing question of the quality of professional restaurant reviews in most cities). The issue, for me, is whether a critic appointed by a newspaper is inherently more qualified than a self-appointed critic. I think the answer is simply no. The empirical data -- that there are bloggers out there who are more knowledgeable than many professional critics -- helps prove the point. But the point stands on its own, regardless.