Food Writing

[sammy]

So what do you think?

Edited December 17, 2003 by sammy (log)

[Alex]

So what do you think?

About what? (Should there have been a link in your original post?)

[sammy]

As an example, should a restaurant critic disclose that he has a relationship with a staff member of a restaurant within a review?

Should he simply recuse himself?

What about a cookbook reviewer? Does the reviewer need to disclose that he/she has the same agent as the cookbook author?

[beans]

So what do you think?

About what? (Should there have been a link in your original post?)

This is an off shoot from thread, Fat Guy's Book Deal, What's the story?

Michael gets to sit around on his ass and collect 15% of what I make on my books; I certainly don't feel I owe him anything else!

Seriously, though, I see my ethical obligation as such: when writing about Mix, I should not let my relationships with Doug Psaltis (with whom I spent a week cooking in the ADNY kitchen in 2001, something I have mentioned on eGullet before), Michael Psaltis, Alain Ducasse (with whom I have become somewhat friendly since I started taking an interest in his cuisine -- in fact I had lunch with him today), or anyone else influence my conclusions. And I don't. If there's something I don't like about Mix or ADNY or any other Ducasse restaurant, I say so. If that bothers Ducasse, or either Psaltis brother, they can all go fuck themselves. Luckily, they're all big boys and understand that I have a job to do, and that part of that job may involve criticizing their work.

I'd be happy to participate in a discussion of the need for disclosure, or lack thereof, in food writing, if you'd like to start a thread on that.

[SobaAddict70]

This isn't the Sarbanes-Oxley Act any more than a restaurant review resembles an opinion delivered by a Supreme Court justice. That said, I think that El Gordo is a responsible journalist. I don't see what the problem is here.

Soba

[sammy]

This isn't the Sarbanes-Oxley Act any more than a restaurant review resembles an opinion delivered by a Supreme Court justice. That said, I think that El Gordo is a responsible journalist. I don't see what the problem is here.

Soba

Maybe it is just really late but I have no idea what that means.

[Mark Sommelier]

Sammy,

WAKE UP. Everyone is in bed with everyone in this business. Hadn't you heard?

[John Whiting]

Shock horror! Several people in the food business seem to know each other! Why should people feeding our stomachs be expected to be more loftily objective than those feasting our eyes? S.N. Behrman's _Duveen_ and John L. Hess's _The Grand Aquisitors_ revealed years ago that paintings are bought and sold as corruptly as politicians, and yet people continue to gain pleasure and even enlightenment from these soiled objects. A critic needn't be virtuous, only accurate.

[Comfort Me]

Sammy,

WAKE UP. Everyone is in bed with everyone in this business. Hadn't you heard?

Next we'll find out that all restaurants are ACTUALLY owned by Haliburton! Which would explain how I was overcharged at dinner last night.

[Chad]

Shock horror! Several people in the food business seem to know each other! Why should people feeding our stomachs be expected to be more loftily objective than those feasting our eyes? S.N. Behrman's _Duveen_ and John L. Hess's _The Grand Aquisitors_ revealed years ago that paintings are bought and sold as corruptly as politicians, and yet people continue to gain pleasure and even enlightenment from these soiled objects. A critic needn't be virtuous, only accurate.

Howdy John, its good to see you weighing in on this issue. I admire your writing.

I don't think the discussion is a referrendum on FG's relationship with a chef as much as it is a general question about how cozy the relationships between food writers -- and especially restaurant reviewers and food critics -- and restaurateurs/chefs/et al can be before the perception of impropriety starts to creep in.

Jeffrey Steingarten addresses this somewhat in his response to the Don't Call Us Conde Nasty question in his Q&A. He points out that 1) he's not a restaurant reviewer so isn't under the same strictures that a reviewer/critic would be, and 2) that he' said plenty of nasty things about people in the past.

Which raises the questions:

Are restaurant reviewers/critics held to a higher standard of ethics and disclosure than general food writers? Should they be?

Does having a cozy relationship with a chef/restaurater change what a food writer writes? Does it appear that way to the general public? Does the general public realize that even the most muck-raking journalist has to cozy up to somebody to keep his sources fresh?

Chad

[Fat Guy]

I don't think the discussion is a referrendum on FG's relationship with a chef as much as it is a general question about how cozy the relationships between food writers -- and especially restaurant reviewers and food critics -- and restaurateurs/chefs/et al can be before the perception of impropriety starts to creep in.

I might be useful, however, as an example of a working food writer who has various relationships with people in the restaurant business. I think you will find that many food writers conceal or downplay those relationships because they feel the public can't handle the truth. I have no such reservations and can, as usual, discuss my personal experiences as well as what I see as industry norms.

[sammy]

Chad, you're right this isn't a referendum on anyone and I think you've framed the issue well.

I think food writers or restaurant critics need to disclose relationships they have that may be perceived to sway objectivity, regardless of whether or not they do. It's just cleaner. What is the downside? If you right a review and say it is great and people go and enjoy it, fine. There is nothing wrong with that. If you pan it when it sucks and people don't go, fine. More credit to you.

There are probably plenty of critics who say it doesn't matter, they are going to write objectively regardless of the relationship. But I would say that it's not the critic who determines whether or not a relationship effects a review, it is up to the diner.

[Fat Guy]

it's not the critic who determines whether or not a relationship effects a review, it is up to the diner.

I think this statement, on its face, is illogical.

[sammy]

it's not the critic who determines whether or not a relationship effects a review, it is up to the diner.

I think this statement, on its face, is illogical.

Please explain.

Here is real life analogy with a sports broadcaster. In a football game, there were several players penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct. The analyst was all over them for being petty, stupid, not thinking about the team, etc. Then, another player does something equally stupid and the analyst is silent.

A few days later, either Bob Raissman in the NY Daily News or Phil Mushnick in the NY Post reports that the analyst and the player who committed the last stupid act have the same agent.

How should we now feel about the analyst and his future comments?

[Fat Guy]

Obviously, the comments in the News or the Post or wherever were meant to lead you to a certain conclusion, and you have bought into that conclusion. But the only important issue to me is: did the sportscaster pull punches because of a shared agency relationship with the player in question, or did he have perfectly understandable reasons having nothing to do with that (for example, does he reasonably disagree with the statement that "another player [did] something equally stupid"?).

[sammy]

What is the downside to disclosing a relationship within a review?

[Fat Guy]

If the relationship doesn't affect the review, disclosing it is a red herring. If the relationship does affect the review, the review should not be written.

[sammy]

If the relationship doesn't affect the review, disclosing it is a red herring. If the relationship does affect the review, the review should not be written.

I think that statement, on its face, is illogical.

[Dave the Cook]

There's also the practical issue, which is that it is a lengthy task to disclose all potential conflicts, and probably impossible for a reader to interpret a comprehensive list, anyway.

[Dave the Cook]

If the relationship doesn't affect the review, disclosing it is a red herring. If the relationship does affect the review, the review should not be written.

I think that statement, on its face, is illogical.

It makes perfect sense to me. If you can write an honest review, then whatever you have to disclose is irrelevant. Conversely, if you can't write without letting personal relationships affect what you say, then you should find something else to do.

[sammy]

If you can write an honest review

According to who? The author, the editor, the reader? I think that is a critical question that has gone unanswered.

Who is going to admit that what they are writing is not honest?

[Fat Guy]

Sammy, let's play out your analogy a bit more. Let's assume the two players did exactly the same thing and that all other things are equal. Further, let's assume the sportscaster criticized each player equally. At that point, what purpose would there be in the sportscaster disclosing that he and player number two have the same agent? How could it be anything but a red herring, the definition of a red herring being "something that distracts attention from the real issue"?

Also, I don't know how agency works in the sports world, but in the literary world I can't imagine any reason why one writer would cut any slack to another of his agent's clients. For example, I have the same agent as the food writer Robert Wolke (What Einstein Told His Chef). In a million years it wouldn't occur to me to pull punches against Robert Wolke in a review just because we have the same agent. What is my agent going to do? Send me back my money?

Some might argue that those who interact with the restaurant business community in a culinary-reporting capacity shouldn't review any restaurants at all; that writing restaurant reviews requires you to be a hermit. I think that's unrealistic, unnecessary, and counterproductive. It primarily ensures that restaurant reviewers will be apart from the subject-matter they cover. It's hard to imagine any other type of journalist in an arts/entertainment-criticism capacity being asked to behave this way, for example a sports columnist being told to stay away from athletes, coaches, and owners.

Overall, I find disclosure issues to be, for the most part, red herrings. It seems to me that the potential problem disclosure is supposed to address is bias, yet disclosure doesn't particularly affect the question of bias -- it simply raises the question. More importantly, the implication that those who don't have relationships with people in the restaurant business are free of bias is false. The important thing is what people say, not their relationships. There are some extreme instances in which I think failure to disclose a relationship is poor form (e.g., "The chef is my wife"), though it's probably poor form to write that review even with the disclosure, but certainly when it's an ancillary and non-subservient relationship I think disclosure starts to push towards a Happy Fun Ball-type warning label.

[Chad]

it's not the critic who determines whether or not a relationship effects a review, it is up to the diner.

I think this statement, on its face, is illogical.

I think I understand the point. It is not the reviewer who gets to decide if his relationships appear improper, it's the reader.

The reviewer or critic may be (as in FG's case) more than willing to slag the food at a restaurant owned by a friend. Unless we know the critic or have followed his reviews for a long time, there's no way to know that that is his MO -- complete honesty at all times. Until we know that, a glowing review of a restaurant can be negated, in the reader's mind, by the later revelation that the reviewer is the chef's brother-in-law or something. An upfront disclosure of the relationship precludes the later (seemingly) damning revelation.

Chad

[sammy]

it's not the critic who determines whether or not a relationship effects a review, it is up to the diner.

I think this statement, on its face, is illogical.

I think I understand the point. It is not the reviewer who gets to decide if his relationships appear improper, it's the reader.

The reviewer or critic may be (as in FG's case) more than willing to slag the food at a restaurant owned by a friend. Unless we know the critic or have followed his reviews for a long time, there's no way to know that that is his MO -- complete honesty at all times. Until we know that, a glowing review of a restaurant can be negated, in the reader's mind, by the later revelation that the reviewer is the chef's brother-in-law or something. An upfront disclosure of the relationship precludes the later (seemingly) damning revelation.

Chad

Exactly! I think I need to make you my agent!

Edited December 17, 2003 by sammy (log)

[Busboy]

Any writer, any journalist, develops networks that support their reporting. Netwroks bring hot tips, rumors, gossip, trenchant analysis, insightful commentry, good leads, important leaks, interesting anecdotes -- all of which help a writer do their job better. Thus, it is in their interest to protect and improve their networks and relationships.

Any action by the writer which might make the network less responsive is therefore, at one level, against the writer's best interests. Betting on people to go against their best interests is not a good way to get rich quick.

Now, there are many levels of best interest. A writer who buddies up to Tom Colicchio (just to pick a name) may get inside gossip on whose restaurant is tanking, a profile piece on TC in Gourmet, a first look at Tom's new restaurant...whatever. It allows him to do his job better and more profitably. If the writer then goes to Craft and has a shitty meal, and writes about it, he's likely to lose access to TC, and TC may spend a good amount of time trashing the writer to other chefs, diminishing the writer's ability to do their job -- bad career move. On the other hand, said writer may get a reputation for speaking truth to power, annd find his or her reputation enhanced -- good career move.

This isn't an Ayn Rand novel, nobody is so noble and gifted as to be utterly dispassionate about these things; industry ties raise the financial and psychic opportunity cost of negative writing to the writer. Pretending that industry relationships can't affect judgement is laughably unrealistic

At the same time, assuming that these relationships are necessarily insurmountable strikes me as overly cynical. In an imperfect world, reasonable disclosure makes reasonable sense.

A follow-up, if I may. Are food writers "writers," "critics" or "journalists." I think how you stand on disclosure is related to to how you answer this question.

Edited December 17, 2003 by Busboy (log)