Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

The Big NY Dining "blogs"


Fat Guy

Recommended Posts

I'll repeat that I in no way mean to be criticizing Josh personally

What you said was:

Josh is simply in those people's pockets. 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lets be honest some of these blogs are simply pay for play. Restaurants use the bloggers for a desired outcome, ie public exposure for a new dish or opening of a restaurant, Its a marketing tactic. The bloggers use the restaurants for food, attention, the ability to tag along at industry parties, ect ect.

This is essentially what I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than the origins and meanings of a shill, I'm more interested in disecting what exactly “soigne” treatment (Cutlets professed to receiving) breaks down to. If its free/comped/extra dishes/favors, etc, than I believe there's much validity to Sneak’s observation’s.

That wasn't chicken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't know which beef purveyors he "rejected" before giving all that attention to Pat LaFreida

Who cares?
Because it is hard to know whether to take someone's recommendation seriously, unless you know what they are comparing it to.
It is, of course, possible for someone to honestly believe they are objective, and yet to be mistaken.

It's also possible for two people to disagree without one of them resorting to a conspiracy theory to explain away the other person's positions.

There are certain situations that so blatantly invite conflicts of interest that one would have to be a rube not to be concerned about them. You know...senators who accept free gifts from corporations, then sponsor legislation those very same corporations are lobbying for? The senator may claim that he would have sponsored the legislation anyway, but it looks bad, and in many cases it is bad. Edited by oakapple (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "in those people's pockets", I meant that because they cultivate him, he gives them favorable treatment.

But what basis do you have for making this assertion? Other than some kind of vague suspicion?

This would seem to imply that, for example, Pat LaFreida approached Josh and somehow massaged and duped him into liking and evangelizing about LaFreida's hamburger blends. What basis do you have for implying that, to make a counter example, Josh didn't simply notice that there were a few places serving burgers that he really liked, found out what meat they were using, then got various information about Pat LaFreida and his operation, met with LaFreida, saw the operation, etc., and then started telling people about it? Or that the didn't start telling people about it, and then meet with LaFreida (etc,), be even more impressed with the product, and then told people about it even more?

You're suggesting, also, that someone with an inferior or non-exceptional product could "cultivate" Josh and receive favorable/positive/disproportional treatment as a result. Like Steven, I may not agree with all of Josh's opinions (he doesn't like Franny's and he believes Di Fara is the best, to make the most obvious examples) -- but I have never had the impression that he touted any restaurant, company or product that he didn't believe in. If you believe otherwise, then I'd suggest you start providing some examples.

If some restaurants, companys or purveyors have opened their doors to Josh's approaches more than some others, and if this has resulted in those restaurants, companys or purveyors receiving more coverage than others... this is only natural. How else is it supposed to work? If Josh had called up Pat LaFrieda, said that he wanted to learn more about the company, its products and the burger blend in specific, and if LaFrieda had given him the brush-off, there would have been less of a basis for Josh to write some of the things he has written about LaFrieda.

You don't know which beef purveyors he "rejected" before giving all that attention to Pat LaFreida

Who cares?

Because it is hard to know whether to take someone's recommendation seriously, unless you know what they are comparing it to.

This is a guy who goes around the city eating things like hamburgers every day. I think it's safe to say that Josh has tried the beef from just about every purveyor that there is. Is anyone suggesting that there is a single meaningful player in the NYC hamburger scene that Josh hasn't sampled at least once? If he tasted one or two burgers that he thought were really special and stood head and shoulders above the others in terms of beefy flavor, and then noted that these one or two restaurants used the same blend from the same purveyor, I'd say he's on to something there.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than the origins and meanings of a shill, I'm more interested in disecting what exactly “soigne” treatment (Cutlets professed to receiving) breaks down to.  If its free/comped/extra dishes/favors, etc, than I believe there's much validity to Sneak’s observation’s.

px status will get you comp courses, its pretty much the norm at all nyc fine dining places

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than the origins and meanings of a shill, I'm more interested in disecting what exactly “soigne” treatment (Cutlets professed to receiving) breaks down to.  If its free/comped/extra dishes/favors, etc, than I believe there's much validity to Sneak’s observation’s.

Why? Because he wants to write good things about bad food, so that he can get more of it for free?

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote]There are certain situations that so blatantly invite conflicts of interest that one would have to be a rube not to be concerned about them. You know...senators who accept free gifts from corporations, then sponsor legislation those very same corporations are lobbying for? The senator may claim that he would have sponsored the legislation anyway, but it looks bad, and in many cases it is bad.

Of course this is exactly why serious food reviewers wont take comps. That way they cannot be accused of blatant favoritism, How often do you see the bloggers ever put anything bad out about there "favorite" places. Such as I had a bad dish at xxxxx restaurant the other night blah, blah, blah. Never, because if they get a not so hot dish they will let it slide in fear of getting the chef angry and the freebies and vip status no longer exist,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "in those people's pockets", I meant that because they cultivate him, he gives them favorable treatment.

It's hard to have an argument when we're not speaking the same language. At a bare minimum, in the language I speak being in somebody's pocket implies a degree of control.

"to have complete control over someone."

"if you are in someone's pocket, you do everything that they want you to do"

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/pocket

I also associate it mostly with bribery/influence situations, for example the book "Is That a Politician in Your Pocket?: Washington on $2 Million a Day."

I just don't think Josh is in anybody's pocket in that sense. Does he have relationships with people in the industry? Yes. So does every mainstream food journalist who's not operating under a reviewer-anonymity system (and so do most of them). But to say he's in anybody's pocket as a result of that is pretty far out. I would still be interested to hear of an example of a situation where this is happening -- where a restaurant that gave Josh extra attention somehow got better-than-it-deserved coverage as a result.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be the crux of the matter. Looking at Josh, can someone describe a situation in which he gave disproportionately positive and/or copious attention to a restaurant, company or product that was clearly undeserved and not a reasonable matter of opinion? I mean, I don't agree with him that Di Fara is better than Franny's or that you can get a better steak at Sammy's Roumanian than a less-than-perfect Peter Luger -- but I don't think one can make the argument that Di Fara and Sammy's Roumanian had somehow nefariously influenced him to profess those opinions.

--

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Is that the role you envision for food bloggers? That they're like regulators or public advocates? If so, then that might warrant a certain code of conduct, in which case it wouldn't be completely nonsensical to call a blogger out for not adhering to that code.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be the crux of the matter.  Looking at Josh, can someone describe a situation in which he gave disproportionately positive and/or copious attention to a restaurant, company or product that was clearly undeserved and not a reasonable matter of opinion?  I mean, I don't agree with him that Di Fara is better than Franny's or that you can get a better steak at Sammy's Roumanian than a less-than-perfect Peter Luger -- but I don't think one can make the argument that Di Fara and Sammy's Roumanian had somehow nefariously influenced him to profess those opinions.

It depends what question we are trying to answer. If it were a crime to be a shill, could Josh be convicted? No. But does he operate in ways that leave his objectivity in serious doubt? Yes. Are there ways he could fulfill his self-stated mission while being more above-board? Undoubtedly. As long as he chooses not to do so, are we well within our rights to point out the multiple conflicts of interest? Absolutely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're either for or against "the restaurant industry" or "the PR side" thereof? That presupposes, doesn't it, that "the restaurant industry" is against you? This all seems quite Manichean.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're either for or against "the restaurant industry" or "the PR side" thereof? That presupposes, doesn't it, that "the restaurant industry" is against you? This all seems quite Manichean.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're either for or against "the restaurant industry" or "the PR side" thereof? That presupposes, doesn't it, that "the restaurant industry" is against you? This all seems quite Manichean.

It would be nice if the restaurant's interests and my interests were always aligned. Often, they are...but not always. For instance, the other day I was upsold a side order of brussels sprouts, even though my entrée already came with brussels sprouts. By omitting a piece of important information (either willfully or due to carelessness), the restaurant's income and the server's tip were higher (I did not ding her for that).

Mostly, restaurants are in business to serve great food and offer great service, in which case their interests and ours are aligned. But if this were always the case, you'd never see a bad review. Sometimes restaurants are bad (or they have elements that are bad). We consumers want to know these things, but it's in the restaurant's interest that we do not find them out.

Edited by oakapple (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

If that's your translation of what I said, perhaps it's your definition of "journalism" that needs examining. Because bloggers absolutely do practice a form of journalism. What most of them don't do is act like Frank Bruni, who is an atypical case. Dedicated reviewers like Frank Bruni represent a fraction of a percent of people writing about food. Most people writing about food (or talking about it in broadcast media) are not in that sort of oppositional role. Journalism includes a lot of things. It includes what Frank Bruni does but it also includes what Maureen Dowd does, and what Josh Ozersky does.

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.

Even on its own terms that argument doesn't add up to "our interests are opposed." At most it establishes that your interests can sometimes be opposed. That your assumptions about what publicists do are false doesn't even enter into the picture yet. That nobody has actually established a factual pattern of Ozersky catering to publicists doesn't either.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes restaurants are bad (or they have elements that are bad). We consumers want to know these things, but it's in the restaurant's interest that we do not find them out.

But that's the same reductionist position that Sneakeater is taking, where all food journalism gets held up to the standard set by Frank Bruni and the New York Times. That's the tail wagging the dog. Yes, if you present yourself as an anonymous, arms-length critic the public has the right to expect you to be anonymous and arms-length (forget for the moment that most so-called anonymous reviewers aren't most of the time). But if you don't present yourself that way -- and Josh certainly doesn't -- then there should be no such expectation. Josh is not out there to expose what's bad. If that makes the information he provides less appealing to you, so be it.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes restaurants are bad (or they have elements that are bad). We consumers want to know these things, but it's in the restaurant's interest that we do not find them out.

But that's the same reductionist position that Sneakeater is taking, where all food journalism gets held up to the standard set by Frank Bruni and the New York Times. That's the tail wagging the dog. Yes, if you present yourself as an anonymous, arms-length critic the public has the right to expect you to be anonymous and arms-length (forget for the moment that most so-called anonymous reviewers aren't most of the time). But if you don't present yourself that way -- and Josh certainly doesn't -- then there should be no such expectation. Josh is not out there to expose what's bad. If that makes the information he provides less appealing to you, so be it.

I don't see it as an all-or-nothing proposition. If Josh's blog were useless to me, I wouldn't read it. I have, at times, visited places that he recommended. I have also ignored some recommendations that I might have accepted if they had come from someone more believable. It's possible to admire Josh for what he does well, while also pointing out the flaws—just as we do with Frank Bruni all the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as an all-or-nothing proposition either. But we have people saying Josh is "in those people's pockets," a "shill for Pat Lafreida" (you have said this too), and that he publishes "false information based upon rumors." So the faux-even-handedness of later comments -- oh, I don't mean anything personal against Josh -- rings hollow.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Sneakeater (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you're saying that pros are held to a lesser standard.

What I'm saying is that you don't define the standard for anyone other than you. It's nice that you pursue a policy of disclosure of everything you feel might be a conflict of interest, but that doesn't make someone else a lesser journalist for not doing so. It is emphatically not the norm to disclose every comp and instance of special treatment. Food writers at every level -- even those in the employ of the New York Times -- spend time with chefs, eat food they haven't paid for, etc. In general, you are more likely to see disclosure of such things on message boards than anywhere else. Certainly you don't see it much in Gourmet or Bon Appetit. I happen to think such disclosures can be healthy. But I think it's downright silly to demand them across all media.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see it as an all-or-nothing proposition either. But we have people saying Josh is "in those people's pockets," a "shill for Pat Lafreida" (you have said this too), and that he publishes "false information based upon rumors." So the faux-even-handedness of later comments -- oh, I don't mean anything personal against Josh -- rings hollow.

I did say that Josh is shilling for Pat LaFreida, in the sense of being so deeply intertwined that what he says is no longer believable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...