The Big NY Dining "blogs"

[Fat Guy]

Now that I know that it's just like a lot of other junk I don't pay any attention to, I'll have more time each day.

←

Earlier on we were treated to the declaration:

I label the entire "professional" blog scene questionable.

At first it seemed maybe there was an actual claim here. But it turns out that this is just a variant of the conspiracy theory that says all media are tools of the military industrial complex and not to be trusted. In other words, it's not a claim about the blog scene at all.

I do think there are some problems with the species of dining blogs this topic was started to discuss. They tend to be redundant with one another (with the exception of Serious Eats New York, which seems to row in its own content stream), the signal-to-noise ratio is not great, and they are micro-obsessive to an extent that even a very obsessive restaurantgoer like me starts to think, okay, enough already people. But those are statements about the blogs themselves, not a superfluous condemnation of all media dressed up as a statement about blogs. Maybe at some point we can discuss the real problems with these blogs, rather than the imagined ones.

With respect to Mr. Cutlets, let me just say that it was utterly shocking to me that, of all the professional bloggers out there, he was the one folks went after here. I just don't get that. I've known Cutlets since before he was Cutlets. Not intimately, thank goodness, but we've crossed paths many times over the past decade. There's little question that the guy is brilliant and talented. He has written a history of the hamburger for Yale University Press. He is a tireless researcher, incredibly prolific and talented writer and champion of excellence. I disagree with lots of stuff he says, just as I disagree with most people in the field on many issues, but I have never thought him anything less than a principled, serious food journalist.

I will say, long ago, I did Cutlets a big favor. I helped get him one of his earliest food-writing gigs. We have also been good to him here in eG Forums -- we gave him a nice bit of PR for his book, Meat Me in Manhattan, which was under-publicized to say the least. I say in a good way that all this never got me the slightest bit of payback when I was doing PR for my books. I had to fight harder to get Cutlets to do something on Asian Dining Rules for The Feedbag than I did with any other media outlet that covered the book. He did not lower his standards just because he owed me one. And I'm glad he didn't. Well, maybe I wish he had. But the important thing is that he didn't, and I think that's generally the kind of guy he is. You can schmooze him all you want, you can do him favors, whatever, but he is ultimately going to make the call on content as he sees it. He's a straight shooter. If he says something you disagree with, it's a simple disagreement and not the result of some ulterior motive on his part. If you want to pick on someone at least go pick on one of the other bloggers.

[Chris Amirault]

If you want to pick on someone at least go pick on one of the other bloggers.

←

I have to say that the concern stated about Cutlets has been odd to read for this very reason. I don't keep up with the NY blogs, but there are plenty of folks out there in the food and cocktail blogosphere who seem content to reprint PR releases on new products complete with industry-supplied photos. If you wanted to do it, it's not too hard to trace back those one-link chains of evidence, and you don't need a conspiracy theory. Anyone got similar evidence for anyone in the NY crowd?

Or is speculation all we've got? If that's the case, anyone demonstrating a preference for something connected to a money-making operation is vulnerable to this speculation. It's fun to write the tabloid headlines: "Cupcake Kooks Kowtow to King Arthur," "Foie Fans on Ariane's Dole."

[oakapple]

At first it seemed maybe there was an actual claim here. But it turns out that this is just a variant of the conspiracy theory that says all media are tools of the military industrial complex and not to be trusted.

←

My difficulty is that there are so many cases when his enthusiasm is just not consistent with the "received opinion" of critics and other food board writers who are known not to be compromised. So either Cutlets is compromised or his judgment has some pretty bad blind spots. Because he seems to be an extremely intelligent guy, I assume he is compromised, as that is the most logical explanation for an otherwise smart guy making such bad calls.

[Chris Amirault]

Yikes. As someone with some pretty bad blindspots myself -- as well as idiosyncratic preferences that others don't share -- I usually assume that everyone else has them too. Those who live in glass houses, all that.

[slkinsey]

Right. Just because I (or the more nebulous perceived consensus opinion of "critics and other food board writers who are known not to be compromised" -- as though these people don't have their own idiosyncrasies, biases and conflicts of interest, which strikes me as a ridiculous position to assert) may disagree with Cutlets on some things doesn't mean that his opinion or expressed opinion has been formed due to some nefarious influence from the PR industry or the various industry relationships he might have. Sometimes the perceived consensus opinion is wrong. For example, I completely disagree with the perceived consensus opinion that Di Fara makes the best pizza in the NYC area. Or how about when the "critics ... known not to be compromised" ganged up with remarkable consistency and dinged Alain Ducasse for daring to open a Michelin 3-star style restaurant in New York City without cozying up to the food media to an appropriate degree? There was this one guy, who was running a personal food-review web site, who dared to disagree with them. Later on, most of these critics somehow magically changed their minds about ADNY and agreed with the internet food guy, despite the fact that the cuisine and service at ADNY had not meaningfully changed to a degree that would warrant such an elevation. I could go on to make more examples, but what's the point. The "critics and other food board writers" have followed one another like sheep and got it wrong many, many times. Indeed, it is a well-understood psychological phenomenon that people rate things higher when they know that others have rated that thing higher. So it's ridiculous to use this as any kind of measure by which to imply that a writer who does not follow along has somehow been tainted. Rather, in my opinion, this is an indication that he is not afraid to march by the beat of his own drum and remains relatively free of the tainting influence of consensus. There have been any number of places that have been the darlings of the food media and food boards, that just haven't appealed to Josh -- and vice-versa. But, at least according to my impressions, and I can't say that I've payed close attention or done any kind of exhaustive study, his preferences are fairly consistent.

Edited March 14, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[weinoo]

Indeed, it is a well-understood psychological phenomenon that people rate things higher when they know that others have rated that thing higher. 

←

The old "emperor's new clothes" theory.

BTW, didn't everyone love Artichoke Pizza at one time? Haven't heard about it in months.

[slkinsey]

Indeed, it is a well-understood psychological phenomenon that people rate things higher when they know that others have rated that thing higher.

The old "emperor's new clothes" theory.

Right. There was an interesting study done where they divided up a large (>14k) sample into different "worlds" of internet consumers downloading from a common set of 48 songs. Members from the same "world" could see what the other members were downloading and which songs had been downloaded most. If quality along determined the popularity of a song, then one would expect that the songs would be "ranked" fairly equally among the different "worlds." What they found was exactly the opposite -- rankings diverged widely, such that a song ranked #1 in one "world" was ranked #40 in another. This experiment demonstrated many things, among them the influence of chance events in success or failure, but more pertinent to this discussion, it demonstrated the huge influence of one's peers and perceived "consensus opinion" in determining what are generally held to be individual preferences.

BTW, didn't everyone love Artichoke Pizza at one time?

Exactly. When I tried their stuff, I found the "regular" pizza mediocre at best, and the signature pizza one of the most revolting things I have ever attempted to eat.

Edited March 14, 2009 by slkinsey (log)

[weinoo]

BTW, didn't everyone love Artichoke Pizza at one time?

Exactly. When I tried their stuff, I found the "regular" pizza mediocre at best, and the signature pizza one of the most revolting things I have ever attempted to eat.

←

Yet they were lining up around the block.

[daisy17]

BTW, didn't everyone love Artichoke Pizza at one time?

Exactly. When I tried their stuff, I found the "regular" pizza mediocre at best, and the signature pizza one of the most revolting things I have ever attempted to eat.

←

Yet they were lining up around the block.

←

It happens. Magnolia cupcakes.

[taion]

BTW, didn't everyone love Artichoke Pizza at one time?  Haven't heard about it in months.

←

There are occasional stories about it on Eater, stuff like expansion plans and menu changes and soforth. This seems to just be the news cycle in operation, no? Artichoke is still turning out pizza that I enjoy quite a bit, but it's not really making that much news. A lot of restaurants are in that category.

[slkinsey]

Come on! This is good stuff.

[Sneakeater]

YES. That's exactly what's so maddening.

[taion]

Come on!  This is good stuff.

←

Except for the whole tagging the #2 burger with the wrong restaurant name... it can't possibly have been the Burger Shoppe in FiDi, could it?

[oakapple]

Yikes. As someone with some pretty bad blindspots myself -- as well as idiosyncratic preferences that others don't share -- I usually assume that everyone else has them too. Those who live in glass houses, all that.

←

True, but you're not getting comped all over town, or at least, not to my knowledge. Josh is saying, "Yeah, I hang out with publicists and get mounds of free stuff, but I'm so indepenent I can freeze out the hype, and only report on what's really good." You can choose to believe that, or you can conclude he's getting played. I think he's getting played.

[slkinsey]

In my observation it is typical of these sorts of things that most people believe other people are susceptible to their biases and influences, while I am able to eliminate or mitigate my biases and influences.

[Fat Guy]

I think when attacking someone's ethics, good taste requires being specific. Now we've heard a lot of grand claims about how there's all this bias, now let's see some actual examples. I just went to the Feedbag, as I have each time these wild and in my opinion nonsensical claims have been made, and reviewed all the stories on the lead page. So, what's wrong with a single one of them from a bias perspective? Where is there a hint of anything untoward? The worst thing I can say, and the worst thing I've ever had to say about Josh's work, is that I don't personally agree with every single thing he says and, in some cases, I don't particularly care about the subject matter. So what?

[oakapple]

I think when attacking someone's ethics, good taste requires being specific.

←

I am not attacking his ethics. I am questioning his independence. There is nothing unethical about being the sport and toy of publicists. I mean, publicists aren't independent, are they? We don't consider them unethical; we accept them for what they are.

Publicists often supply useful information. Josh often supplies useful information. I believe Josh may be naive about his ability to separate his considered opinion from the manipulation of the people who feed him. But it is not unethical to be naive.

Of course, we could just say that we disagree with him, and leave it at that. But we do tend to "diagnose" our critics. Frank Bruni, for instance, is too inexperienced; Adam Platt is too bored. (I know Josh says he isn't a critic, but as there are plenty of "reviews" with his name on them, I trust I'm on safe ground when I disbelieve him on that point.)

So yeah, I think that Josh is too influenced by the chefs and publicists who feed him free stuff. I do not believe he is doing anything unethical.

[slkinsey]

I believe Josh may be naive about his ability to separate his considered opinion from the manipulation of the people who feed him.

You may be right there. I couldn't say. But I don't believe he is any more naive about this than Bruni and Platt and you and Sneakeater are about the many things that have been demonstrated to have a profound influence on what we perceive to be our independently-reached opinions. There is some question in my mind as to whether it's better or worse, in the grand scheme of things, to have most of one's potential influences clear and understood (as they are in the case when Josh receives a comp and must remind himself that it shouldn't unduly sway his opinion) or to have most of one's potential influences largely obscured and not understood or appreciated.

[docsconz]

Of course, we could just say that we disagree with him, and leave it at that. But we do tend to "diagnose" our critics. Frank Bruni, for instance, is too inexperienced; Adam Platt is too bored. (I know Josh says he isn't a critic, but as there are plenty of "reviews" with his name on them, I trust I'm on safe ground when I disbelieve him on that point.)

So yeah, I think that Josh is too influenced by the chefs and publicists who feed him free stuff. I do not believe he is doing anything unethical.

←

Josh considers himself an "enthusiaast" rather than a critic, a designation I apply to myself as well. The difference is that an enthusiast tends to write about what he likes, while a critic looks to pick things apart. I write about my meals, but unless something strikes me as really off or really annoys me, I tend not to write about lesser experiences. That doesn't interest me to do that, though I'm glad that there are critics who do.

[Holly Moore]

It is quite possible to be both a "critic" and an "enthusiast" though I prefer the term reviewer to critic.

Back when I was writing my column for the Philadelphia City Paper and now, with my website, I defined my mission as finding good to great places for people to eat. In my newspaper days my stance was that until Philadelphia ran out of good dining experiences (or great ones) my column inches were too valuable to squander writing about bad places.

There is no mandate that a reviewer or critic must write about bad experiences as long as one is up front about it with readers. I can limit myself to restaurants I can recommend and still write honestly and credibly.

PR types are tools for the writer. They can keep the writer informed of what is happening at a restaurant and set up interviews or get questions answered. If one writes about such things, a PR person also can keep the writer aware of restaurant events, promotions and such.

After writing for a while one gets to know the restaurant PR people - who can be trusted and who is all hype. But, even with the trusted ones, it is as President Regan says, "Trust but verify." Depending on the PR person, anywhere from eighty to a hundred percent of what they provide is useless. Where writers go too far with PR types is when they ask them to set up freebies or when they simply cut and paste from a release into a column.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Holly Moore (log)

[oakapple]

Josh considers himself an "enthusiaast" rather than a critic, a designation I apply to myself as well. The difference is that an enthusiast tends to write about what he likes, while a critic looks to pick things apart. I write about my meals, but unless something strikes me as really off or really annoys me, I tend not to write about lesser experiences. That doesn't interest me to do that, though I'm glad that there are critics who do.

←

As Holly noted, it is possible to be both an enthusiast and a critic. I am an enthusiast too. I only visit restaurants I expect to like, and I only order dishes I expect to like. If I were a pro critic, I would be obligated to visit a much wider range of restaurants, and to order a much wider range of food. But even as an enthusiast, if it should happen that I am disappointed, I say so. I would prefer that this never happens, since I am spending my own money, but the reality is that restaurants screw up sometimes.

Josh Ozersky clearly is a critic, in the sense that he publishes material designated as "reviews." What's more, the act of deciding which places to write about is "criticism," even if he does not tell us how he arrived at the decision. I doubt that he is looking to me for career advice, but I think his reputation would be enhanced if he wrote negative reviews too. It would prove that, despite all the free food and publicist-massaged access he gets, he really can call a spade a spade. He claims he can, but he provides no evidence of it.

[WK2]

Like others on this thread, I'm not sure I understand the problem with Ozersky, even if he is biased. We no longer live in a world where we particularly need to obsess over the reliability of one critic, or one outlet, or one newspaper. Rather, the confluence of the big (and small) New York dining blogs creates a pretty efficient market in restaurant and food information, reliable, unreliable, petty, important, whatever, and it's all to our benefit.

Take Ozersky, for example, and the supposed shilling for La Frieda. Even if Ozersky's efforts have unfairly elevated La Frieda, the probable alternative to the supposedly shilled information is not the same amount of perfectly unbiased information, but either no information or less information. As it is, Ozersky has introduced a lot of us to a part of the food chain that otherwise would have remained shrouded. Isn't that helpful, even if Ozersky might be too taken with La Frieda (if indeed he is)?

The problem reminds me a bit of recent complaints I've read about journalists granting anonymity to administration officials without sufficient cause. Frankly, I'd rather have the info given anonymously than no info at all, and would have assumed the same was true of most people.

Edited March 17, 2009 by WK2 (log)

[oakapple]

Take Ozersky, for example, and the supposed shilling for La Frieda.  Even if Ozersky's efforts have unfairly elevated La Frieda, the probable alternative to the supposedly shilled information is not the same amount of perfectly unbiased information, but either no information or less information. As it is, Ozersky has introduced a lot of us to a part of the food chain that otherwise would have remained shrouded.  Isn't that helpful, even if Ozersky might be too taken with La Frieda (if indeed he is)?

←

The answer, for me, is yes. I do consider Ozersky to be helpful. However, I find no contradiction in enjoying what is good about his work, while being frustrated with limitations that (as I see it) could be quite easily cured.

[docsconz]

Josh considers himself an "enthusiaast" rather than a critic, a designation I apply to myself as well. The difference is that an enthusiast tends to write about what he likes, while a critic looks to pick things apart. I write about my meals, but unless something strikes me as really off or really annoys me, I tend not to write about lesser experiences. That doesn't interest me to do that, though I'm glad that there are critics who do.

←

As Holly noted, it is possible to be both an enthusiast and a critic. I am an enthusiast too. I only visit restaurants I expect to like, and I only order dishes I expect to like. If I were a pro critic, I would be obligated to visit a much wider range of restaurants, and to order a much wider range of food. But even as an enthusiast, if it should happen that I am disappointed, I say so. I would prefer that this never happens, since I am spending my own money, but the reality is that restaurants screw up sometimes.

Josh Ozersky clearly is a critic, in the sense that he publishes material designated as "reviews." What's more, the act of deciding which places to write about is "criticism," even if he does not tell us how he arrived at the decision. I doubt that he is looking to me for career advice, but I think his reputation would be enhanced if he wrote negative reviews too. It would prove that, despite all the free food and publicist-massaged access he gets, he really can call a spade a spade. He claims he can, but he provides no evidence of it.

←

Marc, I agree with most of what you wrote. The problem with negativity in this sense is that the equation changes. Instead of wondering about objectivity and bias and whether a good review is positive payback, the obvious corollary is wondering if a negative review is payback of a different sort. This scenario has been intimated at others in the past. For my part, unless a mediocre experience has occurred in an otherwise universally praised restaurant like the Momofukus, or one with unusually high expectations, I generally don't bother. Particularly awful experiences are worth reporting about in their own right. My preference is to write about what gets me excited or interested or has some other relevance. I'm not sure that I see it too differently with Ozersky.

[Fat Guy]

I think when attacking someone's ethics, good taste requires being specific.

←

I am not attacking his ethics. I am questioning his independence. There is nothing unethical about being the sport and toy of publicists.

←

What you're describing is unethical conduct. It's like saying a doctor is the sport and toy of the pharmaceutical industry, or a politician is the sport and toy of big tobacco. But even with these continuing claims, which are sweeping regardless of their ethical content, we are hearing little in the way of specifics. Again, I very carefully reviewed the last few dozen stories on the Feedbag and couldn't find a hint of a problem. But it's hard to prove a negative. Which entries are you specifically concerned might be driven by ulterior motives, agendas, etc.?