Best of Boston Magazine Controversy

[Steve Plotnicki]

Stone - My only point (which I have done a poor job explaining) is that many things in our society, beginning with our legal system, reach conclusions based on appearances only. And people should adhere to a higher standard then that.

[Fat Guy]

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.

Let's say we have a restaurant reviewer who takes a bribe from a chef to write a good review of a restaurant the reviewer knows is crap (the purest example of what a restaurant reviewer shouldn't do). Let's say he does this five times and keeps getting caught. Well sure, by the fifth time -- or even by the second time -- people's perceptions are going to be affected. But that's the fault of the guy who did the crime.

Now let's say we have a restaurant reviewer who is best friends with a chef, or who used to work for that chef. She writes a review of that chef's restaurant that is spot-on accurate (assume for a moment the possibility of proving this; for example let's say it says the same thing as every other review, or is less positive than the average review of the place, or whatever). At that point, if people want to have the perception that this person is corrupt, on the grounds that reviewing your friend's restaurant creates the "appearance of impropriety," I think we have a different situation from the example above -- a situation of which I don't approve.

[Fat Guy]

Stone - My only point (which I have done a poor job explaining) is that many things in our society, beginning with our legal system, reach conclusions based on appearances only. And people should adhere to a higher standard then that.

I can certainly agree with that. Most restaurant reviewers are all about appearances too. Like you said earlier, there's way too much emphasis in news articles (like the one that started this thread) on sensational-seeming issues of journalistic ethics and way too little emphasis on the fact that most restaurant reviewers don't know crapola about food.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Let's say he does this five times and keeps getting caught. Well sure, by the fifth time -- or even by the second time -- people's perceptions are going to be affected. But that's the fault of the guy who did the crime.

Unless there is something illegal about doing this, I don't care unless he is giving out the wrong information about the restaurant. I won't pay any attention to appearances of impropriety unless I can tell there is something wrong based on my own analysis.

[Fat Guy]

Let's say he does this five times and keeps getting caught. Well sure, by the fifth time -- or even by the second time -- people's perceptions are going to be affected. But that's the fault of the guy who did the crime.

Unless there is something illegal about doing this, I don't care unless he is giving out the wrong information about the restaurant. I won't pay any attention to appearances of impropriety unless I can tell there is something wrong based on my own analysis.

In my example, though, it was: "Let's say we have a restaurant reviewer who takes a bribe from a chef to write a good review of a restaurant the reviewer knows is crap." If the reviewer takes a bribe to write the same review he was going to write anyway, well, that's messed up too. I still think it's an ethics-in-journalism issue, though: using your podium to extort money from those who are the subject of your writing, as opposed to allowing your podium to be bought like an advertisement. Two different species of offense, but offenses nonetheless.

[Steve Plotnicki]

In my example, though, it was: "Let's say we have a restaurant reviewer who takes a bribe from a chef to write a good review of a restaurant the reviewer knows is crap." If the reviewer takes a bribe to write the same review he was going to write anyway, well, that's messed up too. I still think it's an ethics-in-journalism issue, though: using your podium to extort money from those who are the subject of your writing, as opposed to allowing your podium to be bought like an advertisement. Two different species of offense, but offenses nonetheless.

This is an amazingly complex issue. The public perception of payoffs is that it typically changes standards. When in reality, it usually doesn't change anything and one can argue it enhances standards. And I'm not taking a moral position on this because I personally agree it is wrong. But you have to look at the result to decide how strongly one condemns it. The fact of the matter is that a reviewer for a major daily can't afford to be writing raves about crap restaurants. That's because they will lose their job. So regardless how corrupt the system is or becomes, there is that check and balance on the situation. In fact in my experience, that check and balance is so strong, that the reviewers hands are virtually tied from veering from normal and unbiased criticism.

[Fat Guy]

Oh I concur. The Mafia may actually be good at collecting garbage for all I know. The ethical issue can lie elsewhere. If the reviewer is writing good stuff, that particular part of the equation falls away for me. If there is an ethical objection remaining, it's a different species of issue. As for the level of condemnation, yes the practical outcome is a major consideration -- but so is out-of-bounds abuse of power. In any event, journalism is an industry that has set out certain standards for itself. I'm willing to give those standards some deference so long as they are not demonstrably wrong.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Right. The issue with commercial carters isn't whether they do a good job, the issue is how much you have to pay to get the service? They still have to do their job to a certain standard. Because it they weren't picking up your garbage every night, their business would fall apart even if Don Corleone visited every customer by himself.

[Steve Klc]

To bring this back to Boston Magazine a little more specifically, in the linked article there was this passage:

"Copps says she was ''very involved'' in the decision to select the chefs who graced the same issue's ''best restaurants'' cover, including good friends such as English, Jasper White, Ana Sortun, Jody Adams, and Michael Schlow."

I'm more interested in who did not grace the cover. Can anyone shed some more light?

For instance, if Ken Oringer of Clio were not also included on this cover I'd have a real problem. I'd question the integrity of Copps and the editorial decision-making process for this ommission alone, if it indeed were true. Oringer is that good and has the national cred and recognition to back that up. Clio was a notch better than Radius (Schlow) but the fact that Radius had an elite pastry chef pushed them slightly ahead in my book. Well, the brilliant Paul Connors left long ago and that would have to have been taken into consideration for this issue.

What I'd like to get a better handle on is who aren't the AFOA's--the friends of Annie's? I have no idea, but that's what I'd like to have seen addressed in this Globe article. The writer should have made the case for favoritism--rather than cast aspersion--make the case for Boston chefs who were left off.

Did the chef of Mantra make the cover? These are the kinds of questions I'd like to see asked and answered. If not Schlow, White, Adams, Sortun and Todd English, than who?

The pictures that get selected and who gets on the cover are decisions which can speak to editorial and publishing integrity. This is over and above any real or perceived bias in the restaurant reviews themselves. A reviewer like Kummer is responsible for his own voice regardless of "connections" and will be defined by his archive--at the Atlantic and at Boston Magazine.

If there is any meat here, I'd suggest it is more likely to be found on the bones of editorial decisions--and we need some more information. I would have expected the Globe to take more of a serious shot.

[Mebutter]

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.

Been off the computer for the weekend so I'm sorry to be coming in on this late...There are all sorts of good comments here that I want to re-read before responding but did want to respond to Liza and FG.

I was speaking generally about food journalists and no criticism of the particular editor profiled should be implied, nor was I suggesting she hold herself to a higher standard. I don't know her story first-hand so I would not want to make a judgement.

As for Steven, many thanks for your kind remarks. I had to laugh when I read "died-in-the-wool old-school newspaperman." I don't know how deliberate the spelling, or the implication, was - but it was a great touch.

Thank you for brightening my day.

Bill Daley

[Fat Guy]