Compromised food critics

[Steve Klc]

Bill--I think now you're finally getting to the crux of the issue for me, and I've valued and followed this thread with tremendous interest.  I feel there has to be a distinction drawn between the restaurant critic and the food writer.  There are lots of available food writers, freelance or otherwise, on board in every city and publication and what many of them do can hardly be called journalism, whatever integrity and professional ethics "journalism" implies anymore.  I have no problem with this--and encourage perpsective, close relationships, junkets, free meals, whatever for the typical, average food writer.

It's going on, publicists aren't going to stop taking food writers to their clients restaurants, nor should they.  It's the oil of the food world.  Just know what you're writing about and give credit where credit is due.

Yes, the proof is in the pudding, but...

whatever those ethics and professional tenets be for food writers--the restaurant critic, in my eyes, has to be treated differently and has to adhere to a different code.  

This has nothing to do with a writer's voice, perspective, knowledge, opinions.  The restaurant critic--for the sole reason that his or her review column can have such potentially dramatic impact--financially--on a restaurant competing in a marketplace, which is a business affecting numerous lives directly--has to be as above all potential conflict of interest as possible.  That means anonymity, no perks, no junkets, no advertorial interference, no editorial interference on where to dine and as few personal relationships with those reported on and covered as possible, and--because this latter issue is inevitable and natural over time--there has to be tenure in the position of a restaurant critic.

I'm in favor of tenure--but that it is unethical and irresponsible to remain in the same "beat" reviewing restaurants for too long--so I'd like term limits, too--the perfect example of the need for tenure was Phyllis Richman. (Not to turn this into a rant against your friend and colleague Bill.)  The minute a restaurant reviewer becomes known,  roots locally enough for the local talent to have turned several into celebrity chefs, morphed into such a powerful personality or celebrity in their own right--it's time to move to another city, move out to a glossy magazine if your writing is strong enough, go public and become a food writer.  One decade is enough.  Bring in a newbie (or an oldie from another city.)

[mamster]

In what sense are you using the term "tenure", Steve?  It sounds like you're calling for something more like term limits.  In academia, tenure means achieving a position from which it's difficult to be fired.  The goal is academic freedom, the freedom to do unpopular research without the fear of losing your job.  You're making the opposite argument, though, right?

I'm both a restaurant critic and a food writer.  So far I've avoided conflict of interest by never interviewing a chef for one of my food pieces whose restaurant I might review.  (Although "might" is a weasel word.)  The sad thing about food writing, maybe the sad thing about all journalism, is that sometimes you have to almost literally bite the hand that feeds you.

I wonder if food writing gets into more hairy ethical issues than, say, theater reviews because of the power of food as a symbol.  That is, when I go to a restaurant, someone has taken the time to prepare and serve me a meal, and they are going to take care of doing the dishes and thank me for coming to their establishment.  If a friend did this for you, you would never consider writing something about how you went to Jill's house, and you liked her plates and napkins, but the chicken should have been served hotter and the dessert was a disaster.  Okay, you might consider it.

But in restaurant reviewing, you do have to do that, and it goes against all of our instincts about reciprocity.  I think some reviewers are up to the task and some are not.  I'm largely insulated from it at this point--I've done a couple of negative reviews but most often get to throw those out.  The lead reviewer at our paper, like anywhere, has to eat at every new restaurant of note, and if it sucks, she has a responsibility to say so.  I don't know if I'd have the stomach to carry that off for long.

For the food pieces where, say, you have a private session with a chef and she makes you something special with a particular ingredient to try, it's even more of a bind.  The food may stink, but that's no longer the point of the article, and there's even more of a personal connection than in the earlier scenario.

I think we should demand that food journalists be impartial, but we should also understand that we're asking a lot, and in my own case, I think I'll only be able to get away with straddling the line between restaurant critic and food writer for so long, and eventually I will have to, like Fat Guy, move away from reviews and more toward restaurant "coverage" or just home cooking.

[Steve Klc]

Yes, for a newspaper critic, I'd say tenure with pre-agreed term limits is perhaps the best way to go--do the restaurant critic beat for a while and be guaranteed to slide into a food writer beat after you're done.  Specifically that you should not ever be both a restaurant critic and a food writer simultaneously.  You can be both, of course, in all sorts of new media opportunities, but then you are not the mainstream media's main voice on restaurant criticism in your town.  In my distinction, if Fat Guy were to become the restaurant critic for the New York Times he would have to agree to be constrained--to stop all the junkets, outside writing, website journals and blogs, disavow all prior publicist contacts, etc.  The restaurant critic should not ever sit with a publicist on the dime of the client.

I have no problem with food journalists and restaurant critics being opinionated--and don't believe it is actually possible to be truly impartial anyway.  But the restaurant reviewer has to be made to walk the finest line and navigate even the mere appearance of ethical conflicts--for the period of time that he or she is allowed to review restaurants--and then be trotted out to the populated pasture of just general food writers, journalists and celebrity authors.

[Mebutter]

Thank you, Steve and Mamster, for your comments about reviewers and reviewing.

Like you, Mamster, I wonder how long I'll remain a reviewer because of the inherent isolation of the job. I long for the days when I can be trotted out to Steve's "pasture" and be "nice" and interview any chef face-to-face without giving it a thought...(Right now, I'm restricted to chefs who are friends from the old days and won't be reviewed or phoners with carefully selected "targets" - no one I'm planning to review anytime soon.)

Mamster wrote: "The sad thing about food writing, maybe the sad thing about all journalism, is that sometimes you have to almost literally bite the hand that feeds you."

That applies, I think, whether you are a reviewer or a food journalist because there are, still, basic journalistic tenets you should follow.

Steve wrote: "There are lots of available food writers, freelance or otherwise, on board in every city and publication and what many of them do can hardly be called journalism, whatever integrity and professional ethics "journalism" implies anymore.  I have no problem with this--and encourage perpsective, close relationships, junkets, free meals, whatever for the typical, average food writer.

It's going on, publicists aren't going to stop taking food writers to their clients restaurants, nor should they.  It's the oil of the food world.  Just know what you're writing about and give credit where credit is due."

I'm as cynical as the next guy, maybe more so, and there are species of journalists out there who are journalists only in name. But I don't think we can surrender to the blandishments out there, even if they help p.r. people keep their job, because then you're beholden to the wrong people.

Food writer, reviewer, journalist - whatever you are - you have to write for your readers and not your sources. Otherwise they own you - and there's nothing worse than that, I think. Except maybe not writing at all...

God, I'm re-reading this and sound so bloody noble. Actually, I'm not. It's just that I've been a working reporter 20 years and I've always bristled at the public perception that we're all on the take, corrupt, lazy, immoral, what have you.

I always tell people I'm paid too little to go bad.

[Wilfrid]

What a useful thread, because that distinction between restaurant critic and general food writer was not clear in my mind when we started out.  It is the case, of course, that some very well-known critics have been going for a lot longer than a decade, and are instantly recognizable.  Yet their work continues to be of value; maybe they are creatures of unusual integrity.  Let me throw a name in so someone can contradict me:  Fay Maschler, working in London.

The anonymity point is interesting too.  It's hard to think of other fields of criticism where anonymity is of even potential importance.  With books, movies and most art works, the job is finished before the critic shows up.  Theatrical performances are hardly going to improve because there's a critic in the front row (what about opening nights?).  When I was writing reviews of bands who were just starting out, I often avoided contact with them until after they had played, just so that they wouldn't feel self-conscious about having a critic in the audience.  But the private and personal nature of a meal in a restaurant is something else again.  Intriguing distinction.

[Mebutter]

I also wanted to comment on this observation from Steve KLC:

"For a newspaper critic, I'd say tenure with pre-agreed term limits is perhaps the best way to go.  Specifically that you should not ever be both a restaurant critic and a food writer simultaneously.  You can be both, of course, in all sorts of new media opportunities, but then you are not the mainstream media's main voice on restaurant criticism in your town."

I agree with him in principle, but I'm afraid many newspapers are too cheap to hire two different people.When the Association of Food Journalists surveyed restaurant reviewers a few years ago, we found many critics also worked as their paper's food editor or as a food writer. I'm afraid I'm one of them. Fortunately, my food editor can take most of the restaurant stories where face-to-face is needed. Like most of us with two hats, I try to minimize my visibility and exposure to restaurant chefs/owners. I work on stories where I can call on out-of-state chefs or chefs I knew from the days before I was a critic. With everyone else, I restrict myself to phoners and pick people who work at places previously reviewed that I'm not planning to visit. It's not the neatest arrangement - telling an editor you can't do a story is never pleasant - but that's what I have to do.

Other food critics/writers are in the same boat. All of us are trying to find a solution that is ethical and works for our situation.

As for the tenure issue, that's interesting. (I'll skirt the Phyllis subtext.) When should a reviewer call it quits? Hmmm. I sense another topic thread starting to spin....

[Steve Plotnicki]

Excuse me for saying this because I mean no one harm but, I find this whole issue about a critics anonymity and lack of personal relationships to be an aggrandizement by the trade of their importance. It is a shifting of the threshold issue from it being about good palates, to it being about who has the most integrity. And the people who support those rules act as if the integrity that someone acquires from following these prescribed set of rules insures anyone of anything.

I keep asking this but, how exactly DOES a personal relationship skew someone's opinion? I understand that it might be the case, but why is it absolutely the case? And even further, why does everyone discount that a reviewer can go on a junket and still have the utmost integrity?

Or why does an artificial bias (like taking favors) have a larger negative impact than a natural bias? If a reviewer dislikes a certain type of dish, shouldn't he be discredited? Should reviewers that like game be discounted as unreliable because they are biased towards game?

This all comes down to the truth being the truth, and a lie being a lie. And the only way I can evaluate one from the other is by firsthand experience. Unless someone wants to tell me why a bribe is only associated with a lie? Can't it be that someone got paid off IN ORDER THAT THE TRUTH BE TOLD? Now I can understand if we were discussing morality, that a critic who goes on junkets etc. could be branded a wrongdoer. But if he writes the gospel about a place, and we all benefit from it, what and where exactly is the problem?

[Steve Klc]

Steve--it's called the appearance of impropriety, which as you state and I agree doesn't have anything to do with whether someone has a well-developed palate.  And it doesn't confer anything other than that.  Everything else is still fair game--palate, perception, opinion, writing style, knowledge.  No absolutes, no insurance, just taking any and all steps to remove the appearance of impropriety and disclose conflicts of interest in one subset of food writing--the full time restaurant reviewer.

Bill raises a valuable corrollary--what to do about small markets which can't support the full time restaurant critic? Should there be a sliding ethics scale for different circulation categories-- in this case for those of us who value an organization's attempt to reduce or eliminate the appearance of impropriety on one hand yet have to face financial realities in a tight job market with the other?

[Wilfrid]

I agree with all you say, Mr P., and indeed was saying much the same earlier in the thread.  The point which swayed me, specifically about restaurant critics, was that I could readily see that it would be hard for a well-known critic to report on the kind of experience a restaurant might offer an ordinary punter.  I can think of no analogies for this in other fields of criticism.  I did, therefore, concede that I understood the reason for anonymity, just for that limited project.  At the same time, while I can see the reason, I am not sure it rises to a necessity, as some well-known critics do a decent job.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Steve Klc-But why should the appearance of impropriety be given any weight at all? I certainly don't give it much weight. And  in my own methedology of evaluating whether a critic warrants my attention, I wouldn't reach impropriety unless I was able to first make a determination that something was wrong with the review.

The only reason papers need to give the appearance of propriety is that the readers deem impropriety a fatal flaw. That's the part I don't get because nobody has shown me any evidence that impropriety INDEED IS a fatal flaw.

I keep asking the people who disagree with me the same question and it doesn't get answered. If a restaurant reviewer had a relationship with a chef, and/or was a known personality around town so that restaurant personel recognized them, how would that in and of itself taint their review and opinion. Nobody has offered up any corrolation between the two. Only the inference that the dynamic necessarily taints it. But how would you know it's a tainted perspective unless you a)read the review and b)eat the food?

Wilfrid-I've been meaning to comment on you being a music writer but got busy with other things.

NO wonder your point of view about so many things is so screwed up

[ajay]

The other thing that motivates readers to demand anonymity etc. is that they want to insure that the reviewer ate the same meal they were going to be served. Diners are always suspect that they are being "ripped off" and served the sludge while good old Patricia was served the good stuff.

There is another aspect to this issue that is lurking beneath the surface, which is the fact that people want a review to be representative of the average meal served at a place. Personally I can never understand this sentiment. I want a review to showcase a place AT IT'S BEST. And that is because when I go to a place, I want to know how to get them to perform for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL. Why would anyone want the average experience if they can acquire the knowledge of how to get the best experience?  :confused: Yet. that's what people seem to be fighting for.

Let me begin by saying that this is my first expereicne using the quote function, so I apologize in advance if it didn't turn out the way i had hoped.

I am one of those diner who demands anonymity from critics.  I don't have the wherewithal to ever become a "friend of the restaurant," or a regular.  But, I have a great fondness for and a deep interest in fine dining.

It is an incontrevertible fact that not only critics but also friends of the restaurant and 'regulars' receive better treatment in terms of service, and often certain items that not on the menu.  I don't think that it is a difficult or far-fetched assumption that these are the areas where the kitchen really shines, or else that the ingredients used are particularly interesting/unusual.

Moreover, one of the problems all restaurants face is consistency.  The many boards and threads of egullet testify to the fact that restaurants offer divergent experiences on different days.  I demand anonymity on the part of the critc so that I may understand the range of a particular restaurant's consistency.  That is, how low can the experience get for the average diner in terms of food and service, but also, what is the best that an average diner can expect.  

take the case of Arpege.  Mr. Plotnicki wrote an extremeley articulate and impassioned review of a meal he consumed with a regular there.  His dishes sound excellent and perfectly prepared, hence his wonderful review.  The experiences of many, including the fat guy, and regrettably myself seem like they occured at an entirely different restaurant.  The food I ate at Arpege did not seem carefully prepared, the service was surly, and in the case of a couple of dishes, i was convinced the ingredients were less than first rate.  Of these three criticisms, I believe that a critic would have the opportunity to speak only to the third--maybe.  I would not be surprised if a non-anonymous critic had a dish with less than first rate ingredients substiuted for a different, better one.  Some of this behaviour cannot be avoided, but I still want the critic to comment on the experience as I am likely to find it, not the experience the restaurant is capable of.

What I'm trying to say is that it doens't particularly matter to me what culinary heights Dider Elena and Alain Ducasse can take Mr. Grimes to in the chef's dining room.  If they can provide Mr. Grimes the greatst meal of his life back there great.  What I'm interested in as a connsumer of reviews is what kind of experience they are likely to provide ME.  As an ancilliary point (and I think egullet, rather than a review is an excellent source of this info) is what can I do to ensure I have the best possible experience at a given restaurant.

Mr. Plotnicki's confusion confuses me.  He states that he "wants to know how to get them [the restaurant] to perfom for me AT THEIR MAXIMUM LEVEL."  However, it has been my distinct impression that no restaurant has performed for me at its maximum level.  Many times, I have been satisfied, witht he level the restaurant performs at.  In some cases, notably at Troisgros, I've been impressed at the level of the restaurant's performance.  However, at no time has a restaurant ever produced a meal that I believe reflects its maximum level.  Thus, I am not particularly interested in what that level is.  I am interested in the level I am likely to expereince, and for that reason, to help me decide how to allocate my limiting dinning resources, I would like critics to focus on this level as well.  Moreover, I don't know of many critics, aside from the fat guy, who devote any amount of their columns to addressing the question of how to get the restaurant to perfom at its maximum level

Take the example of Le Cirque.  Ruth Reichel demoted the place because she felt such a disparity in the treatment of special guests and the rest of the diners.  WHen such information is ignored in a review, and i go to a restaurant in ignorance of said information, I feel that I have been done a disservice.

As to the question of feeling like I'm being served "sludge," while other diners were served the good stuff, I've often felt acutley aware of this.  Recently, at Arpege, the table next to us received about three additional courses that were not on the menu.  One of the dishes they ordered was the same as mine, and I noticed that it had been garnished more extensively. Being an American in France, I expected that locals may well receive special treatment.  I am not sure that there is anything particularly wrong with this.  However, what irked me was that my meal reached an unacceptably low level.  

Mr. Plotnicki's solution is essentially "vote with your feet;" if you disagree with a review, simply stop trusting the reviewer.  I think this puts too great an affirmative obligation on me, while not demanding enough of the reviewer.  The reason I turn to reviews in the first place is that I cannot afford to try every establishment or bottle 3-4 times and reach my own conclusions.  So, I have to trust the reviewer to steer me to a location that in his/her objective judgement will produce an excellent expereince for ME.  Moreover, in many cases, there is such a paucity of intelligent, knowledgeble that one's options really boil down to biased reviewers, or none at all.  neither option is particularly attractive.  thus, I believe reviewers should change their style.  

Let me add that I don't believe my expectations to be unreasonable, or demand a close relationship with the chef.  As far as I know, most reviewers visit a restaurant more than once, usually three to four times.  I always assumed that this number is sufficient.  I agree with Mebutter's assertion that any necesarry research can be done without meeting a chef.

I'm sure that there many levels people can disagree with me, but i believie my position is sound and defensible.  I concede that there is no such thing as complete objectivity in any beat of journalism.  That does not mean, however, that reviewers should have complete liscence to ignore the experience that an average diner is likely to have.  The fact that a reviewer may be recognized does not mean that anonymity is impossible, or indeed undesirable.  Nor do i believe disclosure is the antidote to any review, though I certainly prefer that disclosure be made as applicable.  In short, I agree witht he proposition that there are compromised food critics, and I would like to see standards of professional ethics imposed on them.

ajay

[Wilfrid]

Some good points there, Ajay.  Perhaps it should be recognized that different readers want different things from the journalists they read.  A Plotnicki, for example, might want to read about everything of which a restaurant is capable.  An Ajay might want to learn what he personally can expect the restaurant to provide.  I think both demands are perfectly reasonable, and the consequence may be that Plotnicki and Ajay read different critics.  Or maybe not.

Mr P., music criticism has been only one of the ways in which have responded to the siren call of the muse*.  I suspect a lot of other things have contributed to screwing me up, and I look forward to slowly laying out my droll and idiosyncratic worldview for your edification over the months and years to come.  

*This was a conscious mish mosh of classical references, just in case anyone thinks I am not paying attention.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

If the funtion of the critic/reviewer is to inform (and it may well not be) then the critic should be above reproach. Spending 50 to 100GBP a head on the spurious recommendation of a professional is not remedied by voting with your feet, it's far too late and expensive for that.

There are critics, Fay Maschler is one, who, whilst maintaining close ties with industry professionials, manage to maintain their integrity.

And then there are the arse lickers.

[Mebutter]

Steve P writes: "I keep asking the people who disagree with me the same question and it doesn't get answered. If a restaurant reviewer had a relationship with a chef, and/or was a known personality around town so that restaurant personel recognized them, how would that in and of itself taint their review and opinion."

Let me try to take a stab at it once again. It's like a man who is asked by his lover to evaluate the lover's technique. Now, if the lover is a 4-star in every sense imaginable, it's probably very easy to rely. But if the lover has some weak spots, is deficient in one or more techniques, the challenge grows. Will the man be brutally honest or will he perhaps couch his words or gloss over faults? If the man wants the lover to be around in the morning, he'll likely choose the second route. So it is when you ask a restaurant reviewer to evaluate a restaurant where he has a relationship with the chef or owner.

It would take a bigger person than me, or most others, to be totally honest. The friendship/relationship poses a challenge to the critic's ability to work unhindered.

As for being known, we can argue back and forth about whether the restaurant can truly "cover up" its sins. But the restaurant sure going to try - from cooking two versions of the reviewer's order and making sure the best goes out, to devoting one server exclusively to that table, to giving the critic a great seat.

There is also an emotional toll, I suspect, to being known and catered to. It's like Katharine Hepburn said about fame - it can make you crazy if you're not careful. Over time, over years of being wined and dined and fawned over, your expectations surely change and surely so does your professional judgement.

Everyone I talk to at my office about this developing thread said the same thing: You have to be vigilant, you have to stay aware of what you're doing or else the other stuff - the freebies, the junkets, the attitude - can slowly creep over you and render the readers a disservice.

SteveP also said, "And the people who support those rules act as if the integrity that someone acquires from following these prescribed set of rules insures anyone of anything."

I certainly don't think that and hope I haven't given that impression. I can't help but recall the original subject of this thread was "compromised" reviewers. So, that's what I've been focusing on. Certainly, palate, training, writing ability, perception all play into a review and should be taken into consideration in assessing a reviewers craft.

What's most important depends on the beholder, I guess. I'd take a humble house soundly constructed over a designer showcase built on a flawed foundation. For me, that foundation is journalistic ethics.

And, I don't think circulation size should affect ethics, either.

P.S. Bravo to Ajay for saying: "What I'm interested in as a connsumer of reviews is what kind of experience they are likely to provide ME." That's what it's all about, relating to all the Me's out there.

P.P.S. I wish I could figure out how the quote function works.

[macrosan]

Ajay, I sympathise with your desire to have a reviewer give you an accurate estimate of what you can expect to experience, but I do think you ask for too much.

First, as you suggest in your post, restaurant performance varies from day to day, from time to time, from table to table, and from dish to dish. To give a realistic prognosis, a reviewer would have to try a restaurant maybe ten or a dozen times. The only place you'll get that range of coverage is here at eGullet.

Second, taste is such a subjective sense that the chances of you receiving the same sensory perception as a reviewer are pretty slim.

In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time. Then a regular follower of that reviewer, one who has generally found he empathises with that reviewer, can have some level of expectation that he may enjoy a meal at a recommended establishment. And that's the most you can hope for.

I'll repeat what I said in my earlier post. People who can't afford to make a mistake in dining out should not rely on a review to give them any guarantee of success. Simply because the cycle of read review/try/asess review/formulate view of reviewer, then repeating that whole cycle several times, is just not possible for someone with such limited funds.

Certainly you are likely to do better by reading what people here at eGullet have to say. That's like chatting to a circle of friends, whose general judgement you come to trust, and using their recommendations.

But you seem to be suggesting, Ajay, that you can expect by right something from a restaurant reviewer that you cannot get in any other buying decision. For example, do you expect as much from testers of cars in motoring magazines. If you do, then you will be sadly disappointed if you try them !!!!

[Steve Klc]

Macrosan, ajay doesn't ask for too much.  what he asks for is reasonable and he didn't seem to me to be asking for a guarantee.  I guess I disagree with you in that you feel you can't really expect much of a reviewer--whereas I think a diner can reasonably expect alot.

Bill, your passage:

"You have to be vigilant, you have to stay aware of what you're doing or else the other stuff - the freebies, the junkets, the attitude - can slowly creep over you and render the readers a disservice."

Well said.  However, I'd go one better--you'd do your subjects a disservice, too--the small chef-owned restaurateur struggling to compete with the larger chain operations, the ethnic restaurant just doing what they known how to do with little comprehension of English, the new restaurant opened by novices, the sous chef just out on his own--they are entitled to "feel" like they are going to get a fair shake regardless of whether they shell out the bucks for a connected publicist or have contacts in the media.  That doing good interesting work across many culinary disciplines and price points can be enough.

I expect a restaurant critic to be able to draw those distinctions fairly and well.

Perhaps it is naive or an illusion, but the anonymous newspaper restaurant critic--freed simply to do his or her job for a limited time irrespective of undue influence, preferential service, the collusion of chef and industry friendships and private dinners with the chef is the only way to serve both readers and subject.  And term limits augur against reviewer "attitude creep."

Macrosan, it is precisely because so much of the restaurant experience can be ethereal--can be altered if known--unlike an assembly line product like a car--that a critic should be anonymous.  That snapshot in time has to be assessed in real time for a normal person over several visits (not 10), and not as a known, pampered foodie--even, Steve P.--if the resulting review nails what the experience would likely have been for a normal person or an anonymous reviewer.  (What a diner should expect--or be conditioned to expect--from reading a restaurant critic is a separate issue; no one loses anything when a critic has to be above reproach for both his/her readers and subjects, the restaurants themselves.)

All subjects have the right to expect to be fairly evaluated not only in their inital newspaper review but also afterward in that critic's "Best of" guides or "Favorites" lists--which end up being a record or collection of snapshots over time.  Note that certain reviewers have moved away from star rankings and some observeable criteria--and moved away from a discussion of what or who is the best but rather who are their "favorites?"  Not the same really--again subtext, sorry Bill--championed historically by the Washington Post group.  That's another thread, too.

There is so much to go around for all the non-anonymous celebrity food writers or personalities that asking this one person per newspaper (in major and medium cities) to be anonymous and to toe a different ethical line is reasonable and he/she would surely not be missed from the junkets and the schmooze-fests. I feel completely differently about glossy magazine food writers and media--and much closer to Macrosan and Steve P. I don't see a contradiction in this either--perhaps others will.  For me the newspaper beat is not the magazine beat.

Let's use a hypothetical example--again involving Steve Shaw were he to become the NY Times restaurant critic.  What's wrong with him recusing himself were he asked to "review" a new Kunz restaurant--a chef Shaw has written often about and knows personally?  Steve P. would say that's ridiculous, that Shaw should review it even if he's friends with Kunz and his review might even be better for it.  Should Shaw recuse himself?

[Jinmyo]

Should Shaw recuse himself?

I don't think so. Mentioning his acquaintance and previous knowledge at the outset, he could then provide insight into how this new venture compares to others. He would be bringing more information to the review and thus provide a much fuller array of information to the reader.

[Steve Plotnicki]

ajay-You have made me even more confused. You said,

"but I still want the critic to comment on the experience as I am likely to find it, not the experience the restaurant is capable of."

Huh? The experience you are likely to find is the one that you ask for. If you do not have someone who discloses a special experience to you (whether it be friend, captain or reviewer,) how would you know to ask for it? :confused: In fact your "ordinary" experience at Arpege happened to you because that is the one you asked for. It might never had happened had you read my review before you ate there and asked them to provide you with a different experience.

Mebutter-You are still are saying that having a conflict is inherently bad. But that flies in the face of my experience that biased information IS BETTER than non-biased information. :confused:

[ajay]

Mr. Plotnicki,

As it happens, I did read your review before I went to Arpege.  I did my best to engage the captain in a meaningful  conversation about Mr. Passard's style of cooking.  He, however, was more interested in being obsequious to the adjoining table of Frenchmen.  I made eye contact, said merci, and did everything I could to convey my interest in and love of food.  However, my experience was extremeley disappointing.

I do not understand how I could have 'asked' for a better expereince.  Are you saying that everyone who ever receives bad treatment in a restaurant does so because he doesn't 'ask' for something better?  

Even without Mr. Plotnicki's review, I would have thought the restaurant is capable of better.  Certainley, one shouldn't have to 'ask' a restaurant to use excellent ingredients!

I simply don't understand how knowing Mssrs. Ducasse and Elena CAN produce a meal that drives Mr. Grimes to new hieghts of culinary transendence will help me 'ask' for a better experience.  All that I can do is convey to the captain my desires, likes and dislikes, listen to to his advice, listen to the views I've gathered, including those of Mr. Grimes, and then hope that the kithcen delivers.

I can only 'ask' that the kitchen do its best.  I can do more.  this is what I did at L'Arpege, but what I received was substandard.

A critic reporting on such an experience is much more important to me than knowing the heights a restaurant can take him/her to. Note this is especially true since I can't probably can't afford to let the chef take me to new heights.

Mr. Plotnicki also seems to suggest that critics provide informaiton that allow an 'average' customer to maximize thier experience.  However, aside from brief discussions of reccomended dishes in their reviews, critics do not offer advice on how to maximize one's experience at a given restaurant. [N.B. Mr. Shaw is a welcome departure from this school of criticism].  Perhaps Mr. Plotnicki reads better reviews than I do.

Macrosan,

I am a consumer of restaurant reviews.  I don't expect anything of them by right, but I believe I have a legitimate expectations that they provide me the service that I pay for.

I agree that a critic necessarily provides only a "snapshot" of a restaurant experience.  But a restaurant reviewed by a legitimate reviewer is usually visited often enough to give an anonymous critic a sense of a restaurant's ragne of consistency.  I believe that in the case of most publications this is three to four visits.  I also assume that more visits are used if they are deemed necessary.  Profesisonal critics, please correct me if i am laboring under mistaken assumptions.  What I expect of a critc's snapshot is a description, and evaluation of the experience that I, as an AVERAGE diner, am likely to receive, assuming I 'ask' for the best experience.

[Mebutter]

Macrosan says: "In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time. Then a regular follower of that reviewer, one who has generally found he empathises with that reviewer, can have some level of expectation that he may enjoy a meal at a recommended establishment. And that's the most you can hope for."

This is absolutely right-on. Hopefully a restaurant will respond/improve based on a review...

Steve KLC writes: "However, I'd go one better--you'd do your subjects a disservice, too--the small chef-owned restaurateur struggling to compete with the larger chain operations, the ethnic restaurant just doing what they known how to do with little comprehension of English, the new restaurant opened by novices, the sous chef just out on his own--they are entitled to "feel" like they are going to get a fair shake regardless of whether they shell out the bucks for a connected publicist or have contacts in the media.  That doing good interesting work across many culinary disciplines and price points can be enough."

I try to take this all into account when i review. I look at what the restaurant is trying to deliver, price, ambiance, food quality, service. Naturally, the cheaper and more casual the restaurant the more slack they get. I also love it when a restaurant dares to experiment, break out of the mold. I'm so tired of tiramisu and portobello mushrooms.

As for talking about the Washington Post Group, Steve, don't apologize. It's not like I'm on the payroll or vacation with these folks. Just keep saying what you want to say. (Who knows, they may be out there listening.)

As for Shaw recusing himself, I'd need to know more before venturing an opinion. If they were bosom buddies, godfathers to each others kids (or dogs), I'd probably have more problems than an acquaintanceship. That acquaintanceship should, in my opinion, be disclosed in any review so the reader can weigh it or ignore it as they will.

Steve P writes: "Mebutter-You are still are saying that having a conflict is inherently bad. But that flies in the face of my experience that biased information IS BETTER than non-biased information. "

Well, I can't argue with someone's personal experience. For me, though, it's been my experience that "biased information" - or the perception of such - can be trouble. That is one slippery slope I try to avoid.

Ajay writes: "But a restaurant reviewed by a legitimate reviewer is usually visited often enough to give an anonymous critic a sense of a restaurant's ragne of consistency.  I believe that in the case of most publications this is three to four visits.  I also assume that more visits are used if they are deemed necessary.  Profesisonal critics, please correct me if i am laboring under mistaken assumptions."

Yes and no. The bigger the paper, and the bigger the budget,the more visits you can expect. Most of the big shots have a fulltime critic or critics who do nothing but.

The smaller the paper, the smaller the budget, and, usually, the fewer number of visits. The critic often has other duties or jobs or is freelance.

The association of food journalists guidelines for critics (www.afjonline.com) recommends at least two visits but adds that three is better. At my newspaper, the policy has been two visits (or eight appetizers, eight entrees and eight desserts) per restaurant. Sometimes I'll go a third time if I'm still not sure...Frankly, I'd like to go more often but it's a budget and time thing.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"He, however, was more interested in being obsequious to the adjoining table of Frenchmen."

Ajay-I'm not really sure what your argument is here. I mean I go to restaurants and recieve less than the best food and service all of the time. But my instinct is to try and improve my experience, and I'm not particularly choosy as to how I do that. And quite often, I accomplish it. But for some reason, this is something you seem to be saying you are unable to do.

Maybe you need a new hairdo?

I often find that it is hard to impress on the staff of a  restaurant that you know what you are doing. My meal at L'Ambrosie last May was full of perfunctory treatment. And no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't impress upon Madame or the Sommelier that I knew what I was doing. The end result was that my meal turned out poor. And maybe even if they "got it" and were charming it still wouldn't have been up to standard. But maybe if their attitude towards our table changed, the night would have worked out better for us.

But getting this back to the point, I don't see how I could discern any of that by reading a review. If the review had spoken of surly service, yet still had given it three stars, I would have gone anyway.

[ajay]

Mr. Plotnicki,

What would you have done if a reviewer complained that s/he expereinced surly service at l'Ambroisie (or le cirque, for that matter)?  Would that cause you to reconsider your choice to patronize the establsihment?  Perhaps, if you felt you had the resources to do so, you might check on the veracity of the reviewer's assertion.

For my part, with the number of excellent restaurants to choose from, I would probably avoid a restaurant that receives such comments.  If, however, a reviewer cannot comment accuratley on the level of serivce, or food that I AM likely to recieve, the review has little value TO ME.  Indeed, in my view that is the critic's mission: to describe and evaluate the expereince a literate and involved diner is likely to receive.

I believe that a critic must be anonymous to get a feel for these issues.  Sometimes, the fact that a reviewer is known doesn't detract from the fact that the restaurant provides a great meal with superlative service.  I remember the fat guy's first review of Lespinasse, where he supposedly took "phony trips to the bathroom" to verify the fact that he was in fact receiving the same courses as the other diners.  It's that kind of diligence I expect from a restaurant critic.

Secondly, Mr. Plotnicki, I was gratified to hear that I am not the only one who feels he has left a restaurant a substandard experience.  But if you grant that one can have a bad expereince even though a better one was 'asked' for, I utterly fail to grasp your point.

Unfortunatley, I will not have the opportunity to give L'Arpege another chance in the near future.  In fact, my experience there makes me disinclined to bother, given all of the other excellent restaurants in Paris.  Mr. Plotnicki, I am curious as to how you "improve" your experineces in a restaurant mid-meal.

I suppose that if you're displeased with the wine the sommelier reccomended, and you aceded to his recommendation, you could order another bottle.  If the food you served was less than stellar, you could send it back and perhaps order more.  But one can only do these things if one is prepared to pay for the new dishes or wine as well as the unacceptable ones already presented.  Moreover, in my case, I'm not sure what kind of results this would have had at Arpege.  I'm not sure what would happen if one sent a dish back in a three star restaurant.  Of the many things, I doubt that I would have been taken seriously, but who knows.  In any case, i am very interested to hear your strategies.

Since you fail to see any connection between what happens to either of us at a restaurant and a critic, could you restate for me what exactly your view of a critc's job is.

I've always been quite fond of my hair style, but who knows... perhaps i shouldn't comb it?

[ajay]

Second, taste is such a subjective sense that the chances of you receiving the same sensory perception as a reviewer are pretty slim.

In my view, all a reviewer can achieve is to give a general sense of level of quality, style, menu, cost, service and ambience of a restaurant at one snapshot in time.

Macrosan,

I've been dealing with so many issues that I fear I've been less than clear.  I believe that I've disposed of the by right criticism, and I believe someone else (Mebutter, I think) has already (quite eloquently in my view) dismissed the difference between relying on an automobile review and a restaurant review.  

Naturally, I agree that taste is a subjective sense.  However on things such as freshness and quality of ingredients taste is not an issue.  It is true that if a certain critic likes sweatbreads they may be more likely to give the nod to a dish of sweatbreads than I don't know, a venison preparation.  I accept this, as every consumer of a review must.  However, I do expect the critic to situate both the venison and the sweatbreads in a relative context.  That is to say, if he was more impressed by the sweatbreads (or venison) elsewhere, he should say so.  

Perhaps the critic is more forgiving of high levels of sweatness in his savory dishes (a pet peave of mine).  He and I will likely not prefer to dine at the same restaurants.  however, even here, I would expect the critic to note the difference between sweatness that is done well and materially enhances a dish, and an attempt to sugar up a dish needlessly.  Moreover, if I can't tell that the restaurant uses high levels of sugar in some of its savory courses, the critic has failed.  His responsibility is descriptive as well as critical.  Surely this trend should be mentioned in his review.  So, I'm prepared to concede that taste is subjective, but for the purposes of reading a review, I believe it should not matter.

I also agree that "all a reviewer can acheive is to give a general sense of level of quality, style menu cost and ambience of a restaurant in one snapshot in time."  However, when the critic receives treatment that will never be accorded to me (i.e. by not being anonymous), s/he has failed to provide me with an accurate snapshot.

I believe that quality, menu, service and ambienece can all be significantly enhanced for a reviewer, or any particular diner on one evening.  Sure, if all of the stocks are subpar, the jig is up.  But suppose only one stock is bad on a particular night.  the restaurant would simply not serve that dish to a known critic.  The same thing goes with the quality of ingredients.  We've heard from countless post on egullet that meats emerge not cooked to order.  Moreover, Wilfrid's food seems to always be served to him after it has cooled. I doubt that either of these things would happen to known critic.  

Finally, as others have already noted, the ambience of a place is remarkably affected by your table, the service you recieve, and a series of other intangible factors.  Surely, the restaurant can improve this for a known critic.  Someone spoke of ensuring all of the tables around the critic receive excellent service as a tactic some restaurants employ.  

So, while you and I essentially agree on what a critic should provide to us, I believe we part ways over the critic's methodology.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ajay-First of all, I do not understand why you keep calling me Mr. Plotnicki? Everyone here calls me Steve. In fact, that is what I post under. Do you have a problem with me? Your posts have an edge to them that I would decribe as argumentative and personal. It's as if, because you are of certain economic means, you find it offensive for me to state my opinion that I want a reviewer to offer up the best, and most in detail report of a restaurant. Let me say that when I used to be in a different financial position, I still felt the same way about it. I always thought that "voting with my feet" was the right thing to do. Even when I couldn't afford to do it. In fact, I'll go even further. I would rather read about a perfect aesthetic that I couldn't afford than to experience a mediocre aesthetic I could. I have absolutely zero motivation to experience the latter. I'd rather eat a pastrami sandwich.

So I think that looking at a restaurant review as a consumer guide is a waste of time. When I get the Times each Wednesday there are only three things I want to know. How many stars, what type of food, and are there any special dishes?  Anything less than three stars better have a good story attached to it. But anything that does get three stars is almost a no-brainer that I will go at some point, REGARDLESS OF THE DETAILS.  

As for three star restaurants, I have no problem sending a dish back. In fact there is a famous story of my sending back my salmon three times at the original Daniel. As for wine, in NYC I almost always bring my own. And in Europe, I go in expecting to be ripped off. But I hardly ever let the sommelier choose for me. And quite often, I find that their knowledge of wine isn't any better than mine. In fact, I find that quite often I am more knowledgable.

As for a critics job, what I want them to do is to ferret out the best information. I want to know about a dish that is so volcanic that it explodes in my mouth. And I do not care if that dish is on, off, or atop the menu. And if it isn't written about, how would I know to ask for it? And if a reviewer wasn't offered the dish because they were anonymous, how would I get the information about it?

[John Whiting]

Steve, you demand a lot more of a meal than I do -- something wonderful every time! -- but I like your attitude. I'm content with quiet simple pleasures, providing that they're actually pleasurable. Once in a while I have an experience such as I've had twice in a few months at l'Astrance, where the food, the ambience and the companionship -- to describe it as service is to denigrate it -- all come together. I've mentioned on another thread somewhere my experience of a menu degustation together with a chamber music concert, organized and cooked by a chef who had already at that point become a friend.

These things happen once in a while. I don't go deliberately searching for them, and so I'm content to let my most common culinary pleasure be puting something together out of what was in the fridge and the larder that makes my wife smile.