Washington Post Food Section

[Steve Klc]

Over the past decade, I've had my problems with the Post Food section. Its strengths: always beautifully designed, edited and executed, usually featuring wonderful Renee Comet photography and boasting a versatile core of stylish, witty writers--especially Walter Nicholls, Judith Weinraub and Candy Sagon.

However, the end result always seemed unknowing and lightweight to me--like a dessert which promised real chocolate but delivered something overly sweet and cloying rather than bitter and complex.  Perhaps I'm too cranky, perhaps I misunderstand the marching orders for and resulting editorial direction of the section, perhaps I'm misguided in thinking that readers at home deserved better--and that they could handle more.

Except for Judith Weinraub, who can do virtually no wrong in my eyes, the staff seemed to be much better writers than they were knowledgeable about their subjects--food, cooking, chefs and restaurants. Over the years, I felt (and was by no means in the minority of the local food community) that there were too many simplistic, irrelevant or insignificant pieces which failed to challenge readers enough, which didn't raise awareness enough. Too much of the actual cooking discussion was home recipe-centric and dumbed down. (Didn't they realize it's all about technique, palate and thought process?) Perhaps the most essential weakness was the failure to explore the inter-relationship of wine with food--with a separate and practically perfunctory wine column relegated to the back. (Weinraub incidentally, won a Beard award in 1998 for a rare, helpful piece on pairing wine with Asian food in the Post--so the talent was in place.)

(For too long, the section seemed to me to be a veritable "Female Food Mafia," a politically-oriented exercise promoting all efforts and all chefs not male, written and directed by a faithful feminine core.  I prefer a meritocracy, but then I am male. In any event, that's speculation for another day.  At this point I should inject some disclosure, too:  I've been covered editorially by the Post over the years, my favorite mention an impeccably-written piece by Nancy Shute in The Washington Post Magazine on June 16, 1996, back when Steve Coll, now Managing Editor of the newspaper, was editing the Magazine section.)

In the past two to three years, though, the section has taken steps to be a little more relevant, thoughtful, reflective and serious.  Regardless of whether you feel "magazine food writing" is superior to "newspaper food writing," multiple Post staff writers have received well-deserved Beard nominations.  The addition of the Robert L. Wolke science column has been a savvy curmudgeonly delight, especially because he's allowed to inject a little attitude into his writing. They've expanded the wine "column" from an afterthought into a "Wine Plus" page, which is a good thing--because both wine columnists--especially Ben Giliberti--really know their stuff.

I'd still like to see more thoughtful coverage of chefs, more reporting of the professional culinary scene, something along the lines of the New York Times wonderful rotating series of "The Chef" columns, or the joint Thomas Keller/Michael Ruhlman LATimes column--rather than wordy, convoluted baking tips about essentially simple things by Lisa Yockelson and dumbed-down drivel from the likes of Elinor Klivans, Marcy Goldman, and the usual suspects rounded up from IACP membership rolls.  I wish the Post would commit to a talented, consistent voice like a Mark Bittman, instead; his "Minimalist" column from the Times is another of the few things I adore from that newspaper's "food" section.

To date, we've been spared from any editorial attempt to turn a Gen X staff writer into a first-person culinary personality--a la an Amanda Hesser diary.  But with all the notoriety Ms. Hesser has attracted--and rumors of a $300,000 advance for her upcoming book now in circulation--can more of that be far behind?  Good thing the NYT's editor largely responsible for obsessing on shallow observations and irrelevant details of the personal lives of writers, Michalene Busico, is on her way to the LA Times to mess up their excellent food section and make their authors into celebrities.  We're safe here, at least for awhile.

In fact, viewed in that light, we're pretty fortunate.

Yes, it's tough to please all of the people all of the time.  But I recommend that more people check out the Post food section online--it seems to be arcing upward--start with today's straightforward, balanced piece on Community Supported Agriculture by Mr. Nicholls:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2002Apr2.html

He gets this right--and it's free of preachy Slow Food sloganeering!

[Malawry]

Except for Judith Weinraub, who can do virtually no wrong in my eyes, the staff seemed to be much better writers than they were knowledgeable about their subjects--food, cooking, chefs and restaurants. Over the years, I felt (and was by no means in the minority of the local food community) that there were too many simplistic, irrelevant or insignificant pieces which failed to challenge readers enough, which didn't raise awareness enough. Too much of the actual cooking discussion was home recipe-centric and dumbed down. (Didn't they realize it's all about technique, palate and thought process?)

I'd still like to see more thoughtful coverage of chefs, more reporting of the professional culinary scene, something along the lines of the New York Times wonderful rotating series of "The Chef" columns, or the joint Thomas Keller/Michael Ruhlman LATimes column--rather than wordy, convoluted baking tips about essentially simple things by Lisa Yockelson and dumbed-down drivel from the likes of Eleanor Klivans, Marcy Goldman, and the usual suspects rounded up from IACP membership rolls.  I wish the Post would commit to a talented, consistent voice like a Mark Bittman, instead; his "Minimalist" column from the Times is another of the few things I adore from that newspaper's "food" section. (To date, we've been spared from any editorial attempt to turn a Gen X staff writer into a first-person culinary personality--a la an Amanda Hesser diary.  But with all the notoriety Ms. Hesser has attracted--and rumors of a $300,000 advance for her upcoming book now in circulation--can that be far behind?)

I devour the Post Food section weekly. I also read the NYTimes section, and I try to check out the LA Times section periodically. I don't know much about the staff at the other two papers, but I do know that the writers at the Post Food section largely came to writing about food from other forms of journalism, not from a background in food and food issues. Just the same, I admit to preferring the Post food section to that of the NYTimes because I find it more useful in an immediate sense, and because I'm usually more connected to the topics they cover. I wish they invested the resources in their section that the NYTimes obviously invests in theirs.

I'm curious as to which other recent stories you particularly enjoyed. Some of my favorites have included the Walter Nicholls piece on Rappahannock County (which won a well-deserved Beard nomination) and a piece that ran about a year ago on the subject of buttermilk (I forget who wrote it, and an Archives search did not appear to pull it up). I have a copy of this article at home somewhere. Since I read it, I've kept fresh buttermilk around, and I've tried some of the recipes that appeared with the article with great success...the pancakes I've mentioned before have become a standard in my house.

Sometimes they really miss it, though. I was pissed off about Candy Sagon's interview with vegans that ran a few weeks ago. I was angry that a group of people who seemed to take no joy in eating were the only representatives interviewed, and that Sagon didn't try to talk to some vegetarians and some people who aren't activists. (She mentions vegetarianism consistently in the article, but only interviewed vegans. She shouldn't generalize to vegetarians from the vegans she talked with; vegetarians and vegans have very different approaches to food in my experience. I would have been less annoyed if the article had accurately represented itself as discussing the vegan standpoint, but I still would have been annoyed.) That being said, Sagon did win some points from me by trying a vegan diet for a week and documenting her food intake and her reflections on the diet as the week progressed.

Steve, do you read Kim O'Donnell's Live Online "What's Cooking" chats on washingtonpost.com? Hoo boy, she could be her own topic of discussion. My fear is that she'll be elevated to Hesserian proportions.

Disclosure: my partner Erin works for Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, which is a Washington Post company and which brings us www.washingtonpost.com.

[Steve Klc]

Malawry--quick reply to the Kim O'Donnel morphing into Hesser-like proportions--won't happen.  She's too limited, though works hard online and does a good job cheerleading a chat with a kind of thank you for sharing/support group feel.  Credit to her for devoting an hour to vegetarian concerns (once a month?) Notice the recent switch away from promoting how "zany" she is?  She's better when she's not zany.

What she serves up is pleasant, just not provocative, original or interesting enough.

[Mebutter]

I try to read the Post food section on-line every week. I think it's a good read and gives people the information they need no matter their level of experience. I always find something new to learn - or learn more about.

Steve makes a good point about the Beard awards. I think the awards the Post has won for food testifies not only to the talent of the staff but the Post's ability to "connect" with readers - even contest judges. It's a spark I don't always detect in some of the other food sections I read.

Like Steve, I also have to make a disclosure. I have met the Post food editor and Post restaurant critics (Phyllis and Tom) at Association of Food Journalists conferences. I like them. Maybe that's colored my perceptions of the Post's food writing, but I think I'm on solid ground in saying the section is clearly one to watch. (we also used the superb how-to-carve Thanksgiving photo spread in our newspaper.)

P.S. I got here via the food media link. Perhaps other replies to Steve's msg can be posted there too???

[SteveW]

I'm curious Steve Klc, could you elaborate on your opinions of writer Marcy Goldman? She comes from this area(Montreal, Canada). I've enjoyed her food writings in the past, but never seen her articles in the Washington Post(I was aware that she wrote for the Post). However at least one person with a baking background has told me, that she is unimpressed with Marcy's writings. Marcy speciality is baking, from what I gather.

-------------

Steve

[Steve Klc]

Steve--for me, too much of her "baking" and writing is basic, boring, unsophisticated, unoriginal or has been done better by others previously.  The last things we need are more recipes by volume and more recycled baking advice dumbing things down for the home baker.  Fewer recipes, more helpful information, more reflective thought, more pictures of technique and presentation would improve things greatly.

[Steve Klc]

I went to this year's Beard journalism award dinner and found myself seated at the Washington Post table with Tom Sietsema, nominated for his "Let Them Eat Steak" piece and also Walter Nicholls, who was there to accept on behalf of Joel Achenbach, should Joel win.  My report of the evening is here:

http://forums.egullet.org/ikonboa....08;st=0

Walter was not nominated this year (they submitted his biscuit piece) but as Malawry stated previously, and with which I agree, he should have won last year for that in-depth Rappahannock piece, which had to have taken so much time to research and write.

[Katee]

I really enjoyed Jeanne McManus' May 8th story on Lillian Meyer's collection of recipes. It was interesting to think about what the recipes we collect say about our personalities.

[Steve Klc]

Hi Katee--we talked about Jeanne's great article here if you want to weigh in:

http://forums.egullet.org/ikonboa....;t=6448

[chefette]

Steve wrote:"--like a dessert which promised real chocolate but delivered something overly sweet and cloying rather than bitter and complex.  Perhaps I'm too cranky, perhaps I misunderstand the marching orders for and resulting editorial direction of the section, perhaps I'm misguided in thinking that readers at home deserved better--and that they could handle more" and "there were too many simplistic, irrelevant or insignificant pieces which failed to challenge readers enough, which didn't raise awareness enough. Too much of the actual cooking discussion was home recipe-centric and dumbed down."

Perhaps its just you - Bitter and Complex to the core of your being ;-)

I know the following is not exactly in-line with the discussion you were trying to spur but:

I agree essentially that the Food Section seems to be caught in a balancing act between reporting on food and wine in the area and presenting recipes and techniques for home cooks.

In the end, it seems that this is both too little and too much.

I think everyone is just thinking too much about all this - for God's sake, its just FOOD - DO something with it - Have FUN with it.  Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't, so you try again.  Failure is good - it is the first and most important stage of learning.  So much of what is published these days treats the reader as if they were small and stupid children.  If you can read you can cook, cook anything.  I look at older cookbooks and they don't have step-by-step photos and illustrations, not even of the final product frequently and yet, for years people managed to make much more complex and time consuming consumables than we seem to be able to manage with the aids available to us today.  Perfection in anything is something to attain after trial and error - so people should just TRY and if they make errors they are lucky because it caused LEARNING to take place.  I started pouring over the Betty Crocker Cookbook when I was in 3rd Grade and my Mom let me tackle anything that caught my fancy.  I had fun, I made all sorts of things that sounded cool at the time:  Baked Alaska (flaming), Daffodil Cake, Floating Islands, Chocolate Eclairs, Divinity, Lemon Chiffon Cake...  The only thing you have to fear...

Anyway, Steve's post made me think about this rant about the perception that everything needs to be simplified for the public.  Then they complain that the public can't do anything.  So, public, stand up and demand complexity. We need a Tim Russert in the food media.  :-)

Sorry Steve

[Steve Klc]

No need to apologize chefette, we seem to agree on this.

[Becca]

my biggest issue w/ the WP food section is that all too often it seems to be about how to avoid food & cooking. I know people are busy and I have no objection to short cuts in theory, but is it the FOOD section. Filling pages w/ suggestions for how to make meals from convenience products, like campbell's soup, etc. seem out of place to me. Maybe these articles are what the majority of readers are interested in/find helpful, but.... there's something to be said for maintaining a standard. ????

[hjshorter]

I have noticed that too, Becca, like that dreadful column where they solicited reader's suggestions for weeknight meals. I would rather eat grilled salmon, salad, and bread every single night than eat some of the shit that people submitted. And do we really need several columns about boiled asparagus? How about a challenge to a chef to produce a dinner with subpar ingredients?

[Steve Klc]

Hi Becca--thank you first off for dusting this off, I had forgotten this and was worried as I was reading through it again about what I said THEN versus how I feel now. The Post section has gotten better and right now, it's on the leading edge of a trend--there is more valuable, more relevant, more interesting things in newspaper food sections--like the Post but also the LA Times, the Chronicle, etc--than there are in the glossies. I think the newspapers are more in touch with their food audiences than before and better overall than the glossies.

The thing about food, which you astutely point out Becca, is often it seems about avoiding food and cooking. I can't tell you how often I try to avoid cooking! The last thing I want to read is another recipe, let alone a how to put dinner on the table in 10 minutes piece. When I read the Food section I want to learn something I didn't know, I want to bask in some very good prose which makes me think about something in a different way or reconsider something, and I want some news about the professional scene--who is doing what where. But that's me. You might not want any of these things--and instead want to know how to put something good on the table for 4 people and only spend 11 bucks.

The thing is, the Post readership is diverse--a million strong--and for some percentage shortcuts and convenience products are key, for another market segment learning more about wine and restaurant trends and hot chefs is important, for another take-out meals and pre-packaged foods you can pick up on the way home from work is important, and on and on. No newspaper food section can be all things to all people at all times--especially when departments are on a budget. That's why so much of the harping the Post section receives is misguided. To make the case against the Post, to say it could be doing such a better job, you first have to understand how the Post is different from the NY Times (the most frequent and ill-formed crack--why isn't our Food section more like the Times) and second, you'd have to be familiar enough with other Food sections to show that the LA Times or SF Chronicle are clearly doing a better job. That's where the Post bashing usually falls down--and why the media Digests which we've just started on the Media board are so valuable. You can go read an Emily Green at the Times or a Bill Daley at the Chronicle--hell, you can read Bill Daley here on eGullet--and see for yourself if "our" writers are doing as good a job as "their" writers.

My sense these days is the Post continues to maintain a delicate but successful balancing act--balancing the often conflicting priorities of its readership as well as any section in the country. There's also alot of writing talent behind the articles regardless of subject--learned, enjoyable, funny, smooth, sharp writing when the article dictates such tones.

A question--did you read through the eGullet Q&A we conducted with Jeanne McManus--who is the editor of the Post food section? My apologies if you have--but it is here in case you haven't:

http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?act=SF&f=46&

A very revealing look into the section and the nature of her job. Plus, I hear the Post's lead restaurant critic, Tom Sietsema, might be dropping by eGullet soon. In case he does, have a question or two ready.

[Steve Klc]

Heather--we cross posted. Here's the thing--I'm not a big fan of Lisa Yockelson's work, so that asparagus article had little appeal for me as does most of her work. But the major article on cocktails, bartenders and trends I loved. Furstenberg got a nice plug that no pro in the city would not wish for themselves, and I wonder if his comment about thinking of meat as a flavoring sailed past most readers. Emily Kaiser wrote the Furstenberg piece and also that line cook piece many eGulleteers loved (though I didn't care for it.) Judith Weinraub's "Foraging" at Indique made me want to go there--to the restaurant--and to Kerala--soon. She conveyed alot in a little space, and granted, I learn more from a typical Suvir post, but still, her piece grabbed me. And the section had another accessible, informative yet relevant wine piece--on Chinon and Loire cabernet franc--of which most readers will probably have been previously unaware.

[vengroff]

I don't mind the idea of articles on how to save time cooking, but I think that the best such articles emphasize that it is possible to do so without resorting to anything that's overly processed, chemically altered or blanded down to the lowest common denominator.

Tonite, for example, I'm going to boil some Yukon gold potatoes, steam some green beans (right over the boiling potatoes), toss them with some tomatoes and red onions and a homemade vinagrette, and top it with a can of Italian oil-packed tuna. It's a weeknight niciose that that will take 20 minutes of my time. Clock time will be longer, but there are plenty of other things I can do while the potatoes boil. Total ingredient cost is well under $10, and there's only one pot and two bowls to clean up.

I'd love to see something like that cleverly written up in 500 words.

[hjshorter]

Heather--we cross posted.  Here's the thing--I'm not a big fan of Lisa Yockelson's work, so that asparagus article had little appeal for me as does most of her work.  But the major article on cocktails, bartenders and trends I loved.  Furstenberg got a nice plug that no pro in the city would not wish for themselves, and I wonder if his comment about thinking of meat as a flavoring sailed past most readers.  Emily Kaiser wrote the Furstenberg piece and also that line cook piece many eGulleteers loved (though I didn't care for it.)  Judith Weinraub's "Foraging" at Indique made me want to go there--to the restaurant--and to Kerala--soon.  She conveyed alot in a little space, and granted, I learn more from a typical Suvir post, but still, her piece grabbed me. And the section had another accessible, informative yet relevant wine piece--on Chinon and Loire cabernet franc--of which most readers will probably have been previously unaware.

Yes, I loved the piece on Indique too. More than just a generic review, it highlighted an unusual preparation, something that makes Indique more than just another Indian restaurant.

The Furstenburg article was actually OK, but I haven't liked this series since it started. Of course a talented cook can prepare a meal given those constraints. The information they impart about the chef and his techniques and ideas are far more interesting than the food. Why not do an article about the chef and skip the "less than $10" conceit and the recipes?

I enjoy the wine column tremendously. Informative, accessible, relevant - and consistent. I print these for trips to MacArthur and Calvert Woodley.

[vengroff]

Here's how it turned out:

Headed to the eGRA.

[hjshorter]

Looks great vengroff - I am a big fan of composed salads, especially in the summer when produce is so wonderful. And yes, it's easy, delicious and doesn't rely of a bunch of processed crap.

I will say, the column on page three, "Dinner in half an hour" or whatever it's called, has interesting ideas for quick fresh meals. I'd love to see that expanded a little.

Edited April 10, 2003 by hjshorter (log)

[Monica Bhide]

I really enjoy the Food section of the Post.. it has a lot of practicality that many others lack...

[Steve Klc]

I just stumbled across this:

http://www.emilykaiser.com/

A nice bit of background on one writer mentioned in this thread--which includes an archive of all of her recent freelance work for the Post--the Furstenberg and line cook pieces and her very nice piece on Peter Pastan of Obelisk--whom she cooked under before realizing writing about food might be a better career choice than preparing it professionally.

I suspect Emily is going to have a bright future as a food writer.

[lronick]

I once asked a Post ex-editor friend of mine why the Post's Sunday magazine section was so pathetic when compared to the NY Times'. He made the astute observation that the NY area newspaper readership is divided into readers of the Times (affluent, literate, sophisticated) and readers of the NY Post/Daily News (blue-collar, lower middle-class) readers. That fact allows the Times to focus its editorial content on topics of interest and value to its readers. It also allows them to sell advertising space to upscale advertisers, yielding more revenue. Compare this to the Post's broad spectrum of readers, who come from every socio-economic stratum.

I assume this editorial philosophy carries over to the food section as well. While I'm not a regular reader of the Times food section, I have noticed that they usually avoid the "get dinner on the table in 10 minutes for less than $10" topics. The Post, by necessity, must try to be "all things to all people" (ignoring the Wash. Times for now). With that in mind, the Post does a pretty good job.