Compromised food critics

[John Whiting]

This is a meaningless comparison. Have you been to Stringfellows?

That is a rude response. It's very meaningful to me; I've eaten at both. I would never have chosen the latter, but Larry Adler, who was an old friend, invited us to his 80th birthday party. Food aside, I found it one of the most sordid, sleazy environments I've ever been forced to endure.

[Tonyfinch]

John,I did not mean the response to be rude.But to say that I love L'Astrance and loathe Stringfellows is like saying I love Beethoven and loathe Britney Spears.The two are so far apart that the comparison has no meaning.If you say I love L'Astrance and loathe Le Gavroche then we can have a meaningful discussion as to why.

Andy,I am trying to make a distinction between really liking a place and being a "fan" of it.In your Fay Maschler quote she tells us she likes and admires Richard Corrigan. But why? Because he's wild? Because he's Irish? Because he's wild AND Irish?( all irrational and illogical fandom) or is it because he cooks damn food and his restaurant is a pleasure to visit regardless of his wild Irishness(a rational and logical basis for a review).

Of course criticism is all about liked and dislikes but there IS a distinction between the rational and irrational and the professional critic should know where that lies.

[Andy Lynes]

Maschler actually says that she loves the restaurant and that she likes and admires the chef who runs it. That to my mind makes her a fan and supporter of the Lindsay House. Now, I wouldn't say I actually hate the Lindsay House, but I don't plan to return to it and wouldn't recommend it very strongly to anyone else.

This puts me at odds with a critic who I usually find myself agreeing with. So does that mean that she has allowed her friendship of the place to cloud her better judgement, her critical facilities?

I think the answer in this instance could possibly be yes and the fact that Fay likes the place so much will not persaud me to give it a second chance. It may well get some first time punters through the doors though, who might well agree woth her though.

So this doesn't get us any further down the line apart from saying that restaurants can have fans and supporters who would like to see the business they like so much flourish.

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think Bux did  a better job articluating one of the points than I did. It doesn't make a difference if bias is a function of lack of anonymity or because the reviewer is enthusiastic about a certain style of cooking. They both shade reviews. That's why the ultimate test has to be the personal smell, and taste test. If someone keeps reviewing places and their opinion is constantly off, you just won't pay any attention. That's like Grimes and I. Maybe he knows what he's doing, but it doesn't express my sentiments about food. And the reason we differ is irrelevent. Regardless of the cause, the result makes him of limited use.

As for music and reviewers, music criticism is problematic. Artists just mean too much to people. I find that music critics consistantly refuse to see things objectively. People's tastes in wine is simlar. Coversations about food on the other hand are not as volatile as ones about music and wine and I have a theory why.

There isn't any correlation between the best recording and the biggest commercial success. It's very easy for music critics to take a position (and most often correctly so) that an album that costs $20,000  to record, is better than one that costs $1,000,000. Wine is the same. Easy to argue that a $40 bottle of Cote Rotie smokes the pants off of a California Cabernet that sells for $250. But food is different because the best chef in the world can't get around the difference in quality between a steak that costs $5 a pound and one that cost $20 a pound. (This point also goes to the food/art thread too.)

A second point about music review is that many reviewers refuse to acknowledge that there is a difference between REM and Brittany Spears. If one cannot see Spears as well-done music of the strictly pop variety, regardless if you like the style or not, one shouldn't be reviewing those types of recordings. But in response to Andy's point about reading the music trades which included complaints from readers, what makes you think that the controversy you described doesn't sell more magazines?

John-The problem is you have to go to L'Astrance and Stringfellows in the same evening. Just make sure you go to L'Astrance first.

Tony-Go Arsenal Go Arsenal

. If

[John Whiting]

Between loving and loathing there is a continuum within which a fixed and absolute division would be arbitrary and controversial.  Anyone who loved one fine restaurant but hated another, both of which were generally so acknowledged, would do so either because of a uniquely unpleasant experience or on grounds so personal and irrational as to be of interest chiefly to their psychiatrist. I don't think that this particular line of enquiry is liable to produce anything more appetising than a tossed salad of split hairs.

John-The problem is you have to go to L'Astrance and Stringfellows in the same evening. Just make sure you go to L'Astrance first.

If that's a joke -- and it has to be -- it's very funny. More to the point, I would have to go to both of them in the company of Larry Adler, which would now be either paranormal or grotesque.

[Tonyfinch]

If that's a joke -- and it has to be --

In this instance maybe,but not always.Our good friend Cabrales told us on another thread that she was so disappointed by her meal in one London restaurant that she immediately upped herself and went to another.

John, just to be clear,are you saying that if a critic or anyone else loathed a restaurant that was generally considered to be excellent then that loathing would have to spring from either one awful experience or  irrational reasons which are of no general interest?

[Andy Lynes]

in response to Andy's point about reading the music trades which included complaints from readers, what makes you think that the controversy you described doesn't sell more magazines?

Uhm, I don't think that came up did it? I'm not entirely sure thats true anyway. I always bought NME every week, but would buy Sounds or Melody Maker if it featured a band I was particularly interested in, Joy Division say. It was too late if I then found out if the journalist hated the band. It was the coverage I was interested in.

Similarly with restaurant reviews. I might buy a magazine that covers a particular restaurant I am interested in, it's too late if I then find the reviewer is a no nothing socialite who pushes salad leaves around plates for a living

[John Whiting]

John, just to be clear,are you saying that if a critic or anyone else loathed a restaurant that was generally considered to be excellent then that loathing would have to spring from either one awful experience or  irrational reasons which are of no general interest?

I am suggesting that, aside from an unfortunate mishap, such a unique loathing would be more likely to be of psychological than of culinary interest. The phrase "have to", which I didn't use, overstates my case.

My apologies. I did say "either or". I'll retreat so far as to qualify with "very likely".

[John Whiting]

There’s a problem with equating restaurant reviewing with music reviewing, particularly if popular music is included. Some might suggest that the latter has passed so completely into the hands of accountants, who demand that musicians be manufactured like objects and the market manipulated to produce a rapid and continuous turnover, that so-called reviews have become merely a measure of commercial success. An equivalent food review would concern itself enthusiastically with minute variations in the narrow range of products offered by the half-dozen corporations who dominate the junk food market.

The luxury restaurant business, corrupt as it may be in certain respects, must still produce a meal which will please a mature adult with a certain degree of discrimination, and who has not been beaten into submission by a repetitive primal beat.  

[Simon Majumdar]

John

Unfortunately your take on the "fine" end of the restaurant scene is no longer apt

This too is run by accountants and just as a record company and indeed, even in my own business, a book company, have to "shift units" so a restaurant has to have "bums on seats" unless you are a smaller operation like say, Basildogs bistro in cornwall, you are constantly at the whims of your backers to show profit per square foot and table turn.

Now, while I understand this is a necessity of modern life, I think it does mean that reviews become part of the marketing mix for any new restaurant opening.  Some food critics can close a restaurant like Frank Rich could close a show.  So, they are feted by short skirted "tits & teeth" bimbos and invited to see the kitchen, meet the chef, have a special pre-opening meal etc etc.  All of these compromise their final view.

Finally, on another note.  has anyone noticed how awful Meades looks these days?  I wonder since he left the Times if he is not getting all those free meals at MPW places.  I saw him at Borough on saturday last and he looked positively emaciated.  Such a shame as he was the archetypical "fatty"critic

S

[macrosan]

Some food critics can close a restaurant like Frank Rich could close a show

I know this is arrogant, but I want to reiterate a point I made earlier which no-one has addressed.

I don't believe what Simon says here, that a critic can close a restaurant [with a bad review]. I simply do not accept they have that level of influence. To us the theatre critic analogy, it is clear that very many shows panned by the critics are wildly successful (Lloyd Webber's were classic, The Mousetrap was universally panned, and so on) and even more significantly vice versa. When a show which the critics panned happens to close because it's no good, the critics inevitably latch on to that as the proof of their influence and power.

Someone give me an example of a good restaurant which received a bad review and which then closed. Someone give me an example of the opposite.

No, I think the professional reviewer has a valuable place in the hierarchy of restaurant cuisine, but it is one of entertaining accompaniment rather than power.

[Tonyfinch]

I think there is a difference between Britain and the USA on this. There is no critic in Britain who wields anything like the power of  some of their American counterparts.We discussed at length some aspects of this over on the Robert Parker wine thread.Americans,in general,are far more inclined to see the critic as guru and to "follow" critics in a way that Brits are far too sceptical to do.

[Fat Guy]

It's threads like this that make me regret the limited number of hours in the day. I wish I had the time to comment adequately here, and I apologize in advance for only scratching the surface of a critically important topic. Luckily, most of the critical points have already been made, and my contribution will be minimal.

Let me begin by suggesting that a restaurant review -- and at some point we must agree on a definition of the term -- has two primary functions. And those functions are, in my opinion, inherently in conflict.

One function of a restaurant review is consumer protection. I think this is certainly what the average reader thinks of first when he thinks of what a restaurant review should be. The consumer protection issues are pretty obvious: What will the average customer be served, how will he be treated, etc.? Does the restaurant treat known critics so differently that it's impossible for them to be objective or even to sort out the issues of special treatment from what everybody else gets? These are important questions, albeit more important at some restaurants than others. And it couldn't be clearer to me that the consumer protection function of a restaurant review is best served by anonymity and adherence to an absolute code of detachment and propriety.

The other primary function of a restaurant review is education: A good review teaches something. Or perhaps teach is a pompous word, and the better way to describe it would be simply as the conveyance of information. No matter, the point is that a good review increases the reader's knowledge of the restaurant and of dining in general in ways that do not involve the consumer protection elements of the review. And again it couldn't be clearer to me that the cloistered restaurant reviewer is inadequate to this task. Thus the contradiction. Sure, it is possible to conduct a lot of good follow-up interviews on the phone, and there are ways to maintain detachment while still gathering a lot of information. But anybody who thinks he can get all the best information without directly engaging chefs and restaurateurs up close and personally is delusional. It would be tantamount to a sports writer never attending a game or entering the locker room, but instead watching every game on television and conducting interviews only by phone.

Moreover, it is quite impossible for the most influential newspaper reviewers in major markets to remain anonymous. And this creates an issue too: Only the insignificant restaurants, or the ones that slip up, will fail to recognize a critic and therefore receive truly objective (from the anonymity perspective) reviews. As a critic for the New York Times, you will never make it through the front door of Le Cirque 2000 without being recognized -- even if you have plastic surgery in anticipation of the review.

Disclosure is important, and on the surface level it appears to be the solution to the conflict described above, but at some point it becomes annoying and repetitive. Most reviewers -- especially of high-end restaurants where the chefs are public personalities -- will, over time (and usually before becoming a reviewer), develop so many direct and indirect contacts within the industry as to make full disclosure a lengthy proposition. I am sure there are some readers who would like to see half a review (as well as any other story in a newspaper or magazine) devoted to full disclosure, a statement of the critic's biases, etc., much like the old Saturday Night Live "Super Fun Ball" advertisement. But most wouldn't. I wouldn't.

To put a slightly different spin on Plotnicki's main point, let me put it this way: There are good critics and there are bad critics, and their goodness and badness doesn't much correlate with whether or not they adhere to the AFJ guidelines (which are interesting and pretty sensible as a starting point but of course don't tell the whole story).

It has been asked a million ways whether, for a critic, dining anonymously is required by good journalistic ethics. How about another question: Is dining anonymously ethical at all? In most contexts, a reporter has an obligation to disclose himself. That is, at least, the default. Undercover investigative journalism -- complete with carefully engineered false identities -- is a special case within the journalistic universe, yet it is the norm in restaurant reviewing. Undercover restaurant reviewing, while perhaps valuable from the consumer protection standpoint, has done much to create an adversarial and ultimately destructive dynamic between restaurants and reviewers. If you look at various ethical guidelines for journalists (which the AFJ says you should) you will find statements to the effect that a journalist should not "obtain information through undercover means such as false identity, hidden microphones and cameras, spying, infiltrating, or misleading reasons about the news coverage. In exceptional cases journalists may do so if it is of definite public interest, where reprehensible actions must be exposed, or the information cannot be obtained through other means." (See http://www.lau.edu.lb/centers-institutes/i...idelines1.html) So, while I dine anonymously most of the time when wearing my restaurant reviewer hat, I never feel entirely comfortable with the lies.

The issue of money is the elephant in the living room here, of course. To do weekly restaurant reviews well in a market like New York or London -- where the critic really should dine out for lunch and dinner almost every day of the week -- costs easily in excess of $100,000 a year. There are most likely fewer than five reviewers in the world with budgets in that range. Everyone else has to live with compromises.

[Steve Klc]

Well said Steve.  Do you think living with Michael Bauer as lead restaurant critic, editor of the Food section and in control of the Sunday magazine column is a necessary--or even acceptable--compromise?

[Roger McShane]

Steven

Your points are well made but only tangentially address one of my main points in starting this thread.

I agree that any major newsprint reviewer will soon be recognised in a market such as Paris, Sydney, New York or London.

And I agree that while they might be recognised, a certain level of professionalism can carry the day and allow them to review dispassionately.

But one of the points, among others, that I was making was the slightly cosier relationships that are developing in these markets.

I am worried about how a critic (to use Steve K's useful distinction) can one week write a dispassionate review of a restaurant and then the next week appear at a cooking demonstration or wine tasting or whatever with the chef/owner of the restaurant they have reviewed. Or how they can co-author a book with the chef or run a joint cooking tour. I just don't believe that anyone can segment their lives like that!

[macrosan]

I am worried about how a critic (to use Steve K's useful distinction) can one week write a dispassionate review of a restaurant and then the next week appear at a cooking demonstration or wine tasting or whatever with the chef/owner of the restaurant they have reviewed. Or how they can co-author a book with the chef or run a joint cooking tour. I just don't believe that anyone can segment their lives like that!

Roger, why is this such a major problem ? I can heatedly argue with and criticise close friends, but still remain friends, and still continue to argue with and criticise them. Members of the scientific community do this all the time. Literary people do this all the time. Normal people do this all the time. Why is it different for restaurant reviewers?

SteveS, you said that restaurant revies have two primary functions (consumer protection and information). I would add a third - entertainment. My pet example of this is AAGill, who I find lacking in knowledge or critical capacity, but highly entertaining. In fact, I suspect he says a lot of things he doesn't really mean just in order to deliver a mot juste.

[Simon Majumdar]

The e.g of AA GILL adds a third criteria.  Activity.

Gill can write, not knowledgably, but he can write.  He is however a lazy bugger and most of his reviews seem to be about five minutes walk from his house on the King's Road or where he has dragged his bit of tottie for a weekend.

Surely for a critic to be anygood, he has to get out of his usual circle if only occasionaly?

S

[Roger McShane]

Roger, why is this such a major problem ? I can heatedly argue with and criticise close friends, but still remain friends, and still continue to argue with and criticise them. Members of the scientific community do this all the time. Literary people do this all the time. Normal people do this all the time. Why is it different for restaurant reviewers?

Macrosan

The problem with your argument is that the scientific community (which I inhabit) and the artistic/literary community, suffer from exactly the same problem! They are all in bed with each other (in various configurations).

You cannot argue that restaurant critics achieve world's best practice when, in fact, they are just playing to the lowest common denominator.

So, I am arguing that restaurant reviewers have a wider audience than the scientific community therefore they have more responsibility.

Simon, I agree that Gill needs to walk for more than two blocks to be able to review a restaurant. I think he also needs to understand that Thai food is slightly more complex than a green chicken curry (that is sarcasm - we Australians do not do this well on the Internet). I was not amused by his Nham review.

That's all for now!

[Steve Klc]

I'm solidly with Roger on this one, Macrosan, you are possibly skating on thin ice trotting out scientific and literary practices as some sort of valid comparison.  Whether a book is reviewed at all, who is assigned to review the book and the role of book section editors in this process is highly, highly political--but the comparison isn't valid.  A book could be a bestseller despite any negative review--it's reviewed nationally in numerous outlets whereas a restaurant is reviewed locally and the future of such a restaurant--and such a serious commitment of time and savings-- is directly in the hands of that city's main newspaper restaurant critic.

Science encourages public debate, but journal articles are vetted and peer-reviewed usually privately and these scientists are fighting each other privately and in some case waging very public political and personal agendas as they try to get booked on tv shows, get appointed to bioethical commissions, secure grant dollars and get book deals themselves. It can be as internecine and petty as any field. Doctors performances are evaluated by other doctors but behind closed doors. Chefs and culinary authors will readily blurb each others book jackets but rarely criticize in print.

This is why we have restaurant critics, why we have this thread and why a few of us argue for higher standards.

[ajay]

Fat Guy,

Despite the fact that most reviews in the NYC are do not contain much content that furthers my knowledge of food, I agree that at education is a proper and desirable goal to strive for in a review.

I am not, however, covinced that a close relationship with a chef is necessary to provide this education--just as I am not convinced by your analogy to a sportswriter not setting foot in the locker room.  moreover, I think the link on Mr. Bauer's practices in San Francisco highlight quite well the dangers of compromised critics without any kind of disclosure.  

An anonymous critic is still present in a restaurant, so it's not as though he is merely watching on TV.  The reason a sports writer would be handicapped by watching on TV is that his field of vision is restricted by the camera in a way it would not be if he was on the field and his eyes had the freedom to roam over the length and breadth of the field.  Thus, watching on TV, a writer may miss an athelete's footwork or the block that actually opens the hole.  I believe an anonymous reviewer possess the freedom, while at the restaurant, to take in the details pertinent to reporting on a dining experience.  He would have a chance to see the food, read the menu and ask pertinent questions of the waitstaff, and perhaps the kitchen in his anonymous capacity--I do it all of the time.

I do not see how presence in the locker room, or kitchen will yield information that will make education any easier.  All, or certainley most of the information seems obtainable by phone interviews.  I'd be interested in specific that you believe are only obtainable in person.

By being in the locker room, perhaps you meant that a sports writer or food critic should have actually participated in the endeavor they cover prior to their reporting on it?  But, to the best of my knowledge, most critics are not cultivated from the restaurant industry--other more knowledgable people can and will no doubt correct me on this point if I am incorrect in this assumption.

As to the ethics of critics dining anonymously, I believe that their consumer protection function is essentially covered by the lack of availability exception; the objective information on how a diner is treated is probably only obtained through attempting to recreate the situation.  Thus, if I was Randy Cohem, I would give clear you and all other critics on that theory.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

John-You sort of said the same thing I said, only slightly different. Sometimes, money is the best judge of success, other times it isn't. In my experience, opinions are often impassioned when one can point at cost not being relative to quality. Your point about a 3 star restaurant being an adult experience actually goes to that point. The experience is both hard to understand, and pay for.

Tony-The reason that critics in Britain don't wield power is they don't use a numerical system  . Don't you realize the forcing people to read reviews is elitist?

Fat Guy-I think restaurants should give free meals to reviewers. Especially that reviewer Plotnicki.

McShane-So far in this thread, despite all the things that could go wrong from a reviewer being recognized, has there been a single story of a restaurant that skewed the average experience for a reviewer so that the review wasn't an accurate recounting of a meal? I mean in my almost 30 years of fine dining I can't recall any instances of it happening. And if it did, it can't be that often. It's actually suicidal for a restaurant to try it. Can you imagine if a reviewer found out and wrote about it? Who would ever go there?

[ajay]

Steve,

I wonder, though, would a critic who stumbled upon the information you've describe write about it?  Would Mr. Bauer?

[Roger McShane]

So far in this thread, despite all the things that could go wrong from a reviewer being recognized, has there been a single story of a restaurant that skewed the average experience for a reviewer so that the review wasn't an accurate recounting of a meal?

Yes, yes and yes!!!!

I have consistently drawn a distinction in this thread between writers who are recognised and those who 'cosy up' to the chefs.

Writers who are recognised will inevitably give a review that is slightly biased. Witness what I experienced at Le Bernardin. The reviewer talked about the wonderful spacing of the tables. But the area of the restaurant I was condemned to was less than agreeable! My elbows were dancing with the ribs of the lady at the next table.

I have been to a number of restaurants that have been highly recommended by Patricia Wells where I have been totally disappointed with the experience. I can only draw the conclusion that she is known and receives better treatment than I do.

So, Steve P I think that critics who 'play' with the subject of their writing do compromise themselves. They are absolutely unable to divorce themselves from their friendship/adoration of their friend 'the chef'.

[Fat Guy]

Ajay, as any reporter will tell you, there is simply no substitute for in-person interaction. And personal relationships get you more information. Period. Any critic who tells you he can get as much information out of Tom Colicchio on the phone as I can by spending a week in his kitchen is delusional or an idiot. Whether that informs or adds value to my writing (both about Colicchio and in general) isn't for me to judge, but I hope it does. Still, it doesn't even have to be that extreme. If I go to a dinner at the Beard House and sit next to Danny Meyer, I'm going to learn more than during any phone conversation. And if he knows me personally and trusts that I'm a responsible and competent writer and won't misreport what he says, he will be even more open -- both in person and on the phone. Moreover, because we have history, I know I can trust him -- something that is not the case with most chefs and restaurateurs. Surely, that trust can be abused -- it is always a fragile thing -- but that's the world of journalism.

Roger, "cozying up" is such a loaded term it makes it difficult to have the conversation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a critic having ties -- close ties -- in the community about which he writes. In my opinion it is preferable from the standpoint of providing the best possible coverage.

I'd like everybody to make a list of good critics and bad critics. Do your lists correlate at all to questions of journalistic detachment? In my opinion some of the best critics historically have been the ones with the closest ties to the industry, such as Bryan Miller and David Rosengarten (like him or not, his reviews in Gourmet were superb). This should come as no surprise. When you pluck a beat reporter and say, "Poof! You're our restaurant reviewer!" how can that reporter possible write reviews as competently as a serious food person with a strong culinary background and all the relevant connections?

Ethical guidelines are sensible because they provide a framework, but in the final analysis a person's conduct must be judged on an individual basis. There is certainly potential for corruption in any situation where you have close ties with your subject matter. Some are better than others at maintaining boundaries.

And I certainly hope we won't drop the issue of the ethics of anonymity. Sure, you can always argue that you'll get purer information by being anonymous in any situation, but that would make the ethical question moot in all cases. I think it has to be extraordinary. Is the restaurant industry really so corrupt and out to fool the customer that this kind of institutionalized undercover reporting is justified? It is at least something to think about. And what about my point regarding unequal treatment for restaurants that do and don't recognize critics? If it's impossible for a critic to remain truly anonymous in a major market, isn't the route to equal treatment to do away with anonymity altogether?

What is a restaurant review, anyway? It's really something that the New York Times invented. The whole idea of multiple visits and a certain style of reporting has taken hold, and that's fine if you want to read that. Me, I find the traditional restaurant review written in that style to be exceptionally boring and not particularly useful. I'm guilty of writing plenty of them, but over time I've become convinced that meaningful restaurant reviewing must be more than just reviewing. The better result will be achieved by a merger of the artificially divided categories of restaurant reviewing and food writing, and to get there you simply can't work within the anonymous, Consumer Reports/Ralph Nader-esque guidelines that the Times has imposed upon the journalistic community. It's also too convenient to give that ground to the Times folks, since they are able to set ethical and professional standards that only a few publications in the world have the money to maintain. Yet even with all that, does the Times provide the best reviews?

You've really got to ask what the motivation is for all this focus on a Chinese Wall between reviewers and the industry. I think it panders to a public perception that restaurants are inherently dishonest, and I think the consumer protection function of reviews, as well as the entertainment function, the desire to be controversial, and just about anything but a discussion of cuisine and actual dining, have totally overwhelmed the potentially valuable content that could be delivered in reviews. Such guidelines are certainly convenient, and they allow for a degree of self-satisfaction that you don't get if you're actually involved with your subject matter, but they are not necessarily in the best interests of the readers. The greater sins, in my opinion, are laziness, ignorance, and the refusal to learn.

Let's not allow the hypocrisy to go unnoticed either. All these newspapers and magazines that maintain supposedly high ethical standards should be held under the magnifying glass: The most amazing thing to me is that they all accept restaurant advertising. Moreover, while I have no doubt that in most cases newspaper critics at good newspapers pay for their meals, they are just individual members of food writing staffs that may be very close with chefs, dine for free all the time, and otherwise have biases. The editors may be this way as well, and management too. Sure, an ethical journalist can do his best to ignore these influences. But an ethical journalist can do his best to ignore any influence. And, I submit, the influence of advertisers and managers is by its very nature much stronger than any influence a chef-friend of the reporter is ever going to be able to exert.

What do you all think is the mission of the restaurant reviewer? Perhaps this would help to frame issues of professional ethics. Do you think that mission is really something so prosaic as reporting on the average meal that will be served to the average customer, and labeling it with some stars? Or is it perhaps something a bit loftier, such as championing excellence and promoting the best within the industry while exposing the worst?

[Jinmyo]

The better result will be achieved by a merger of the artificially divided categories of restaurant reviewing and food writing, and to get there you simply can't work within the anonymous, Consumer Reports/Ralph Nader-esque guidelines that the Times has imposed upon the journalistic community.

I certainly agree. But then I read reviews for entertainment, as a form of food writing, rather than look to them for advice.