Best of Boston Magazine Controversy

[VivreManger]

Today's Boston Globe ran an article on the close connections between Boston Magazine's Food Editor and the local chefs she praises. Chowhound's Boston Forum has more discussion of this issue.

Here is the Boston Globe story:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/036/livi...d_editor+.shtml

[Rich Pawlak]

Today's Boston Globe ran an article on the close connections between Boston Magazine's Food Editor and the local chefs she praises.  Chowhound's Boston Forum has more discussion of this issue. 

Here is the Boston Globe story: 

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/036/livi...d_editor+.shtml

Not much different that what was going on when David Fields was at Philadelphia Magazine under the guise of a nomme de plume. He was a well know fashion and cookbook photographer, took photos for more than several Philly restaurants' ads, and was the worst kept secret anonymous reviewer ever. It was a sham. and a shame.

[Steve Plotnicki]

You know they didn't exactly put forward a lot of evidence that the reviews at Boston Magazine are substantially different then they are at other publications, including the Globe. They kept talking about the same piece of circumstantial evidence, she is friends with the chefs. What they didn't do was point to excerpts from reviews that would clearly be erroneous. The one specific they pointed to was her choice of "2002 Best Upscale Winelist." Well anyone who follows the world of wine knows how controversial the Federalist list is because the prices are so outrageous. I don't know what the list is like at No.9 Park but the argument that it is a "working list" meaning real people can actually afford to order from it has some traction with me. In reality, the number of good restaurants in a town the size of Boston is a finite number and everyone knows who they are. If the accusations were that she was giving stinkers high marks based on friendship, or low marks based on no friendship, I can see the point of the article. But the allegation of a conflict alone without evidence that the conflict has a significant impact doesn't do it for me.

[Fat Guy]

Exactly.

I think you'll all find that this issue has been discussed quite extensively here on eGullet before, on several threads, most prominently the compromised critics thread, where eGullet users like Bill Daley (quoted in the Boston Globe article) have stated their positions at length. In particular, that thread contains a lot of analysis of a piece on Michael Bauer, who is about a zillion times as powerful in the food world as anybody at Boston Magazine.

Vivre, can we have a link to the CH discussion on this?

I think Jurkowitz does a credible job presenting the various facets of the issue. Most people who have tackled this have not given weight to the benefits of access.

''This girl's got a lot of integrity,'' adds Summer Shack's Jasper White, one of Boston's top chefs. Stressing that he was a good friend of two former Globe food critics, Robert Levey and the late Anthony Spinazzola, White asks, ''Would Boston magazine be served better by somebody who didn't know anybody in town?''

As I've argued here in the past, this issue of access is very important to any writer covering a closed community. Imagine if sports writers didn't have access to athletes. But nobody claims sports writers are in some sort of journalism-ethics quandary just because they're in the locker room with the players after every game.

Bill Daley hits the nail on the head when he says:

The question of access versus independence can be a delicate balancing act in food journalism. Bill Daley, president of the Association of Food Journalists, says, ''As a food editor . . . you want to be friendly in terms of potential sources, but you have to maintain your distance.''

There's a balance to strike, as with most things in life. It's ridiculous for people to think that a food editor or journalist should be entirely cloistered. Relationships are good, so long as honest coverage can be maintained. That means keeping a certain distance, but also being amenable to a certain amount of engagement.

Another singularly important passage, in my opinion:

The magazine's restaurant reviewer, Corby Kummer, says, ''I was vaguely concerned when she came on as food editor because her background wasn't journalism, [but] she has never asked me once to change my judgment.''

Here's a situation wherein the different roles of a food writer come to the fore. This is the one critical issue I think Jurkowitz really fumbles. Kummer, who as pointed out is the magazine's reviewer, is probably telling the truth here, and if he is then the editor is doing the right thing. There's a difference between the editor, the food writer, and the restaurant reviewer in any large newspaper or magazine. The restaurant reviewer (this is the generally accepted model today, not necessarily the one I think will or should last, but that's another story) is the one who really stays independent and detached. The food writers -- the ones who report on food news, write chef profiles, etc. -- have to be the opposite to be effective: they have to be insiders. An editor has a hand in both roles and also serves a number of additional functions.

By the way, I have written for Boston Magazine -- at least two major cover-story features of something like 4000+ words in length -- so I've really been through the process there. The piece I did on summer entertaining required that I interview something like ten chefs. I was given absolute freedom to select those chefs. Nothing I wrote was ever questioned on the basis of who I was or was not publicizing. I was working with a different editor -- she is now at Saveur -- but I found the magazine's food staff at every level to be professional in its conduct. Indeed, it was only on a non-food article I wrote that I was ever asked to change anything, and there it was a question of political correctness and an editorial change midstream in my assignment -- I'm still annoyed about that one.

Most importantly, from Bill Daley:

Daley is adamant in asserting that food journalists are ''supposed to subscribe to the same ethics as every other journalist.''

This is the one true thing -- everything else flows from it. Of course, it still leaves open the question of how a journalist is supposed to act in a given situation. The code of food journalism from the organization Bill Daley is involved in suggests anonymity for critics. Yet I can think of no other area of journalism in which critics need to be anonymous. The response is that restaurants have a greater ability to tailor the experience to a known critic. Whatever the case, it's all about good journalism and what is appropriate given the totality of the circumstances.

[Steve Plotnicki]

To add to what Fat Guy just said, there are other conflicts a journalist can have besides a relationship with a subject, in this case a restaurant. I mean people have all types of likes and dislikes, biases and prejudices, why is the conflict of friendship worse then any other impairment? You would never see the Globe write an article saying that a food reviewer at another publication doesn't like Kimchee or Sea Urchin so their reviews of Korean and Japanese restaurants are faulty. And to me that is a much more serious accusation then the one they put forth. It all goes to the fact that gossip and sensationalism sells newspapers. And the gritty details about food do not.

Edited February 8, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Fat Guy]

What it comes down to is that in the end the one critically important thing that outweighs all else is what is actually written and published -- what actually appears to the reader. If it is unassailable, the issue of relationships and other potential conflicts pretty much falls by the wayside (with some exceptions). If it's dreck, I don't care that the writer meets all the standards of twenty-seven journalistic organizations -- his output is still dreck. I'll gladly read the work of a connected, in-the-trenches food writer over that of one who doesn't have enough contacts to know the score. As I've argued before, make a list of the best food writers. Surprise: they're well connected.

[Steve Plotnicki]

What if it's supposed to be about dreck? How would you figure out there is a conflict? I guess it would have to be a good dreck article.

[Fat Guy]

My writing is often described in similar terms.

I'll tell you why a story like the one above sells: because the newspapers and magazines are so full of it in the way they portray food journalism. There's a total disconnect between the cloak-and-dagger (and wig) conduct of reviewers, for example, and the reality of what is actually happening out there in the real world. Past example: Ruth Reichl wears wigs. Yet everybody in the business knows exactly who she is. When you set up that sort of expectation among your readers -- when, in essence, you misrepresent how the process works -- of course it will seem scandalous when the process is revealed. It's not that the process itself is scandalous; it's that everybody has been perpetuating misinformation about the process.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Past example: Ruth Reichl wears wigs. Yet everybody in the business knows exactly who she is.

I thought it was because she was a Rebbitsen.

Of course you are right. Newspapers want to report on scandels and conspicuous consumption. Sensationalism sells papers.

[Liza]

FG,

When I read the quotes from Bill Daley that you quoted, I read them with more criticism implied. It seems to me that he's actually suggesting that this editor needs to hold herself to a higher standard than she is. Possible?

[Fat Guy]

FG,

When I read the quotes from Bill Daley that you quoted, I read them with more criticism implied. It seems to me that he's actually suggesting that this editor needs to hold herself to a higher standard than she is. Possible?

More than possible. I'd say almost definite. Though Bill is a frequent poster on eGullet and can speak for himself.

I meant to isolate his comments so as to point to the propositions for which they stand. And in terms of framing the issue, I agree with Bill entirely that there is a balance (a seemingly unremarkable statement, yet one that is often missing from the self-same discussion). I'm sure he and I would define the right balance differently. He's very much a died-in-the-wool old-school newspaperman, whereas I come from the freewheeling Wild West of new media anarchy. But that just means we draw the line in two different places.

[Liza]

Would you agree then the author in question, due to her past affiliations and friendships, needs to work even harder therefore to eliminate the perception of favoritism?

And thanks for the wild west reference - "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly" was on last night and now I have a soundtrack for contentious threads on EG.

[Fat Guy]

Would you agree then the author in question, due to her past affiliations and friendships, needs to work even harder therefore to eliminate the perception of favoritism?

I would agree that she needs to work even harder to eliminate actual favoritism. As for any perception of favoritism, I am very troubled by the society-wide importance attributed to perception, and to the whole concept of the "appearance of impropriety." I understand that a high-profile figure must behave with a certain amount of dignity and comportment, but appeals to perception and the appearance of impropriety are, for the most part, copouts. If somebody has behaved properly, I have a hard time criticizing that person for other people's perceptions of appearances.

[Steve Plotnicki]

As for any perception of favoritism, I am very troubled by the society-wide importance attributed to perception, and to the whole concept of the "appearance of impropriety.

As a former trial lawyer, you know better then anyone that our court system plays a significant role is shaping public perception. Unfortunately the system allows both judges and jurys to jettison hard evidence and reach conclusions based on the appearance of impropriety. Just take a look at Martha Stewart (I'm using her as an example because I want to keep it on-topic ,) she has been trashed in the media even though almost every attorney I heard speak on the topic say that she is not subject to the insider trading laws. But could they find a jury to convict her based on the appearance of impropriety? Absolutely. And if that is the standard used in our legal system, why should publications adhere to a different, and better standard?

Edited February 8, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Jason Perlow]

I think someone needs a lesson in the difference between the law and ethics.

[Lesley C]

As a restaurant reviewer who started out as a chef, I can relate to many of these arguments.

I would have little respect for a reviewer with no ties to the chef community and, as much for someone who hobnobs with chefs constantly. I came into this job with a dozen of chef acquaintances (I wouldn't call any of them friends), but I've had to review over 200 restaurants. I need these contacts to keep abreast of the scene, suppliers, and trends. Otherwise I'd just rely on eGullet for all my information.

I often talk to chefs on the phone, which I feel maintains my anonymity. I have also started meeting a few whose restaurants have already been reviewed, with no foreseeable re-reviews down the line.

Ultimately, some chef contact is necessary for me to be a better critic. I have to know what makes these guys (and girls) tick. Yet I would not attend a chef-filled event, show my face in print or ever appear on TV. When I see critics noticeably courting chefs or hanging out with them (and I see this often) , I have a hard time taking their reviews seriously.

And when it comes to favouring "friends" in reviews, some of us have no problem distancing our work from our personal lives.

[Stone]

Just take a look at Martha Stewart (I'm using her as an example because I want to keep it on-topic  ,) she has been trashed in the media even though almost every attorney I heard speak on the topic say that she is not subject to the insider trading laws.

I'm not sure who you're talking to, but a bit of advice, everyone is subject to insider trading laws. Everyone. If Martha received material secret information and traded while she was in possession of that information, it doesn't matter what her relationship to the company, she is guilty.

(Steve -- There is a "doctrine" saying that insider trading laws only apply to people who have a "duty" to the company not to trade on insider information. That "duty" was judicially created theory on which insider trading liability rests. (There is no law specifically prohibiting trading on insider information -- it's considered to be a form of fraud. People used to trade on insider info all the time, and there are many compelling arguments that insider trading has no negative effect on the market. The issue is really one of fairness and equity -- the average joe and jane should have as much opportunity to make money in the market as an insider, therefore, the insider is prohibiting from leverage his or her inside position.) But getting back to Martha, a recent Supreme Court decision on an unrelated case (Pillsbury? has pretty much said that the "duty" is carried with the info. And insider has a duty not to spread inside info, if he does, the person that receives the info also received the duty not to trade on in. (I haven' read the case in a while, so that's probably not a great summary.))

[Steve Plotnicki]

Stone - My point wasn't to state that she is definately innocent, even though almost every single analyst I hear on TV says she didn't violate anything, but aside from that, I am saying that in the event that it is unclear or ambiguous in any way, she could be convicted based on appearances and perceptions. Many people win and lose cases that way where Judges and jurys cancel out hard evidence for their subjective opinion. And if they are allowed to do it in something as important as the application of the law, why should publications adhere to a different standard?

[=Mark]

I'm not sure who you're talking to, but a bit of advice, everyone is subject to insider trading laws.  Everyone.  If Martha received material secret information and traded while she was in possession of that information, it doesn't matter what her relationship to the company, she is guilty.

(Steve -- There is a "doctrine" saying that insider trading laws only apply to people who have a "duty" to the company not to trade on insider information.  That "duty" was judicially created theory on which insider trading liability rests.  (There is no law specifically prohibiting trading on insider information -- it's considered to be a form of fraud.  People used to trade on insider info all the time, and there are many compelling arguments that insider trading has no negative effect on the market.  The issue is really one of fairness and equity -- the average joe and jane should have as much opportunity to make money in the market as an insider, therefore, the insider is prohibiting from leverage his or her inside position.)  But getting back to Martha, a recent Supreme Court decision on an unrelated case (Pillsbury? has pretty much said that the "duty" is carried with the info.  And insider has a duty not to spread inside info, if he does, the person that receives the info also received the duty not to trade on in.  (I haven' read the case in a while, so that's probably not a great summary.))

My pet peeve (yes I know this is the wrong thread (the original one can be found here ) but I figure it fits (it is, after all, my call) as it appears in this thread) is over use of nested parenthetical statements.

[Stone]

Stone - My point wasn't to state that she is definately innocent, even though almost every single analyst I hear on TV says she didn't violate anything, but aside from that, I am saying that in the event that it is unclear or ambiguous in any way, she could be convicted based on appearances and perceptions. Many people win and lose cases that way where Judges and jurys cancel out hard evidence for their subjective opinion. And if they are allowed to do it in something as important as the application of the law, why should publications adhere to a different standard?

I was only commenting on your statement that people told you insider trading laws didn't apply to Martha. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. Yes, juries and to a lesser extent Judges may ignore hard evidence and rule (intentionally or not) based on other subjective desires. Or so it seems. (Maybe they just see the evidence differently?)

But in my mind, that does not equal an appearance of impropriety. (This actually, may be the same point you were making.) When a jury refuses to apply the law as given or purposefully ignores the facts (usually referred to as "jury nullification" (a recent example in Cal. is where jurors said they would have acquited a guy on charges of growing pot if they knew he was growing medicinal marijauna, even though that was not a legal defense to the charge)), it does not necessarily suggest a conflict of interest (i.e., a juror/judge has a relationship with the prosecutor or defendant). I think, therefore, that this is a different issue from the conflicted reviewer.

[JAZ]

...There's a difference between the editor, the food writer, and the restaurant reviewer in any large newspaper or magazine. The restaurant reviewer (this is the generally accepted model today, not necessarily the one I think will or should last, but that's another story) is the one who really stays independent and detached. The food writers -- the ones who report on food news, write chef profiles, etc. -- have to be the opposite to be effective: they have to be insiders. An editor has a hand in both roles and also serves a number of additional functions.

That was always one of the major criticisms of Michael Bauer (at the Chronicle in San Francisco) -- that for years he was both editor of the food section and the primary reviewer. He isn't any longer, but the damage has been done. No one takes the Chron's food section seriously anymore, despite the fact that there are some decent writers on staff.

[Liza]

FG,

Regarding the import/lack of import due to the "appearance" of impropriety, I am reminded of Bux's comments (speaking on behalf of all Mods) on the Podium:

"Nevertheless we all have to carry the baggage of our past actions and understand we will be judged on our past records with our recent records always being the most important. "

Liza

[Fat Guy]

Liza: Why does that remind you of the import/lack of import due to the "appearance" of impropriety? Where does that statement mention appearances at all?

Plotnicki: Like Stone, I don't see a conceptual relationship between the two concepts. I think you're talking about two different things.

[Fat Guy]

No one takes the Chron's food section seriously anymore, despite the fact that there are some decent writers on staff.

Maybe I'm too much of an outsider to have a good read on this, but I wasn't at all aware that there was a lack of seriousness attributed to the Chronicle's food section. To this New York-based food writer, I think of it as the local New York Times food section equivalent. The writers, moreover, are more than decent. Recently, for example, Bill Daley joined the staff.

[Liza]

FG,

Surely, Shirley, you see the link between one's past behaviour and current perceptions - perhaps a link between one's past career and one's current associations.