Food Writing

[Creeper]

It strikes me that people in the real world have all kinds of biases.  Some of them may have to do with relationships, and some not.  The question becomes whether and to what extent one discloses these biases.

At the moment we are discussing a situation wherein the reviewer has a personal relationship with the chef or restauranteur.  Some people are saying that this should be disclosed.  Well, what if, for example, the reviewer admires the chef's television program?  That could be equally biasing.  Should the reviewer disclose that?  What if he really liked the restaurant that previously occupied the space of the restaurant he is reviewing.  Potentially biasing again.  Does this demand a disclosure?  What if he had a fight with his wife on the way out the door?  What if he's a heavy smoker and has trouble with delicate and subtle flavors?  What if it's really hot that day and he's not all that hungry when overheated?  Maybe he doesn't think Italian food can possibly be as good as French food.  The list of things that can potentially lend bias to a restaurant review is so enormous that full disclosure of all potentially biasing elements would entail a listing of such size that it borders on the absurd.

But that's not analogous to this discussion. If FG were the fan of say a Ducasse TV show that wouldn't supply a reasonable motive to slant a review in favor of ADNY or Mix. It does become relevant when the reviewer has incentive to slant a review... for example, maintaining relationships to further his/her career or possible financial benefit. I've been reading FG's reviews since the fat-guy site and have long known he's a fan of Ducasse, I'm guessing long before they actually met. But a review of Mix in 2003 needs to be taken in its current context, and I think the fact that FG and Ducasse are friends and that FG's agent is Mix's twin brother are relevant. Even though a professional critic should certainly write an objective review in spite of such relationships, disclosure puts all the facts on the table and shouldn't leave anyone second guessing a review.

[sammy]

Sammy is trying "catch" Steven out by suggesting he didn't disclose something he felt he should have. Sammy is certainly entitled to feel that way, but I just don't think a whole thread on whether Steven did or did not is relevant. As an example yes, but really, Steven is the only one being put on the hot seat here.

I'm not trying to "catch" anyone out. JP asked FG if Michael was related to Doug to which he responded yes, they are brothers. I believed and still do that that should have been disclosed in his rave review of Mix.

The only reason FG is on the hot seat is because he is the one that wrote the review, just like Bayless was on the hot seat because he endorsed BK. Not many members seemed to have a problem with making that personal.

[Marlene]

Perhaps so, but you are the one who said this wasn't a referendum on anyone. But it clearly is.

[sammy]

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.

Marlene, except FG opened himself up to that on page 1.

edit to tell you that I forgot to stick my tongue back at you.

Edited December 18, 2003 by sammy (log)

[Marlene]

Well back at you He said "as an example". A 3 page example? come on. Double

[John Whiting]

Having spent over thirty years as a classical musician in London, I got to know a lot of critics. They usually knew the people they were reviewing, both composers and performers, and they invariably had free press tickets. Sometimes they wrote enthusiastically, sometimes scathingly, sometimes indifferently. On no occasion did they ever mention in their reviews whether or not they knew these musicians, and on no occasion did anyone ever suggest within my hearing that they should do so.

A long-established critic might very well know half the members of a symphony orchestra; perhaps he had even slept with a few of them, of both sexes. Any such declaration of interest would have taken more space than his editor would have been prepared to grant him for the entire review.

For myself, when I read a restaurant review, I'm interested in food, not gossip.

[Al_Dente]

Having spent over thirty years as a classical musician in London, I got to know a lot of critics. They usually knew the people they were reviewing, both composers and performers, and they invariably had free press tickets. Sometimes they wrote enthusiastically, sometimes scathingly, sometimes indifferently. On no occasion did they ever mention in their reviews whether or not they knew these musicians, and on no occasion did anyone ever suggest within my hearing that they should do so.

A long-established critic might very well know half the members of a symphony orchestra; perhaps he had even slept with a few of them, of both sexes. Any such declaration of interest would have taken more space than his editor would have been prepared to grant him for the entire review.

For myself, when I read a restaurant review, I'm interested in food, not gossip.

Well put. That's it, my $0.02.

Carry on (if you must)...

[Pan]

Pan, what if a meal is taken with:

- A repeat-customer of the restaurant who typically gets excellent treatment

- A chef from another restaurant of a high caliber

- A fellow food journalist who is known to the restaurant

- An editor from an important magazine (this one is actually true)

- A dining companion who orders really, really expensive wine

- A famous Bordeaux producer

How about a question back to you:

What do you feel you should disclose? Nothing, ever?

My bias is generally toward disclosure, but the specifics are up to the writer.

[Fat Guy]

What do you feel you should disclose? Nothing, ever?

I might mention, for example, that I spent time in Ducasse's kitchen at ADNY, if I find that to be relevant to something I'm writing. Not relevant in the sense that I think readers should know it so they can make perceptual adjustments regarding the level to which they will discount the rest of what I say on account of that revelation, but, rather, relevant in the sense that it helps to communicate something in the story I'm writing. I wind up "disclosing" lots of stuff about myself simply because I think it's relevant to something I'm writing about. However, I hope I have made clear that I reject the entire notion of disclosure for disclosure's sake.

I will spare you all the list of picayune relationships I have with Ducasse's organization (e.g., "Ducasse's publicist, Robin Insley at the Susan Magrino Agency, lives on my block and we have the same landlord. I apologize to the eGullet community for this late disclosure."); it's overkill, and I think I've made my point as well as I'm going to make it.

Pan, Chad, and the rest of you who have engaged in polite and agenda-free debate on this issue, thanks for an interesting afternoon's discussion. At this point, I think I'll close up shop on this thread and move on to other issues on the site (there are so many). I hope I've lived up to my offer to use myself as an example, and I hope this discussion will continue to thrive and be productive. I particularly appreciate that most people remained civil and focused, so that not a single post on this thread thus far has required editorial intervention. It's a pleasure to be the director of a site where that can happen. Thanks again.

[fifi]

Reading this thread has made me tired. But it has been instructive.

Here is where I sit. I really don't want to know a lot about a reviewer's relationships. If I am reading a review, I want to hear about the food, the service, and the room. I always make the assumption that everybody in the industry knows everybody else and if a reviewer has a bias, I will figure it all out in the end. I am a big kid now. And, if a revewer is working within a confined space like a newspaper, please don't waste any of those words on telling me who your agent or your brother-in-law is.

[Pan]

One of the things I care about is that I've had mediocre-to-poor meals every time I've gone to places that have received four stars from the New York Times (in different "eras"), so I have to wonder whether the fact that X or Y bigshot got good treatment at A or B fensy-schmency restaurant has any bearing on the treatment Michael Nobody (that's who they think I am) will get if I ever spend two or four hours' worth of salary at these places. I'm afraid that this makes me tend to discount every four-star review somewhat.

[tommy]

the companion thread to this one on some other board must be fascinating. i can only hope that points are shared in both directions.

[tommy]

An analogous situation happened last year on the eG NJ boards. After several posts blasted Sonoma Grill, a group of adventuresome eGulleteers visited the place anonymously. The restaurant knew all about our us coming, comp'd us on half the menu, passed a very generous gift bottle of wine from Nick Gatti (a former eG member), and served us a fabulous meal.  The posts describing that meal very clearly stated this wasn't typical, and the average schmo wasn't likely to have the same experience.

i don't know if that [my emphasis] was so clear.

that thread.

Edited December 18, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Schneier]

Pan, what if a meal is taken with:

- A repeat-customer of the restaurant who typically gets excellent treatment

- A chef from another restaurant of a high caliber

- A fellow food journalist who is known to the restaurant

- An editor from an important magazine (this one is actually true)

- A dining companion who orders really, really expensive wine

- A famous Bordeaux producer

It depends.

If I were writing a magazine/newspaper review of the restaurant, I would definitely disclose any of that. Even more so, I would take pains to ensure that none of that is true.

I know this isn't true for every food writer. Some accept favors from restaurants, and I'm sure it biases their writing.

But eGullet is not the New York Times, and standards are--and should be--much more lax here.

As I said before, there's no pleasing everybody. If you are true to your own principles, good will win out in the end. (I just saw ROTK, so please forgive a little moralizing here.)

Bruce

[Schneier]

Reading this thread has made me tired. But it has been instructive.

Here is where I sit. I really don't want to know a lot about a reviewer's relationships. If I am reading a review, I want to hear about the food, the service, and the room. I always make the assumption that everybody in the industry knows everybody else and if a reviewer has a bias, I will figure it all out in the end. I am a big kid now. And, if a revewer is working within a confined space like a newspaper, please don't waste any of those words on telling me who your agent or your brother-in-law is.

In general, I agree.

But this only works if I trust the reviewer. Disclosure is one--but not the only--way of achieving that trust, and non-disclosure is one--but not the only--way of losing that trust.

The details are up to the writer.

[beans]

Reading this thread has made me tired. But it has been instructive.

Here is where I sit. I really don't want to know a lot about a reviewer's relationships. If I am reading a review, I want to hear about the food, the service, and the room. I always make the assumption that everybody in the industry knows everybody else and if a reviewer has a bias, I will figure it all out in the end. I am a big kid now. And, if a revewer is working within a confined space like a newspaper, please don't waste any of those words on telling me who your agent or your brother-in-law is. 

In general, I agree.

But this only works if I trust the reviewer. Disclosure is one--but not the only--way of achieving that trust, and non-disclosure is one--but not the only--way of losing that trust.

The details are up to the writer.

I'm with fifi.

I could care less who the reviewer has had a relationship with. I don't know the reviewer enough to evaluate trust issues. It is sort of a given for they somehow got the job to do so.

Integrity.

[Basildog]

My only point would be that i don't think people need to know every detail about a writers relationships within the industry, but when it seems to the outsider than a buisness relationship may have some relevance, then it would be in the writers interest to nip it in the bud at the start.

I wrote a small review of Ripleys on egullet, and stated that i knew Paul, as that was what i thought was expected.

Edited December 18, 2003 by Basildog (log)

[Pan]

What do you all think of the issue that I have never gotten anything remotely approaching 4-star food at any restaurant already rated 4 stars in the New York Times? Doesn't that say something about how the reviewer got served, as opposed to how I did?

[fresco]

Maybe you have higher standards than the NY Times reviewers.

[Pan]

I don't think so. Do you think they would have given Lutece 4 stars if they had gotten sand at the bottom of their Soupe de Pistou? Do you think they would have given Bouley 4 stars if their dining partner's chicken came partially raw?

[fresco]

I wonder. It's a pretty sure thing that the Times visits restaurants a few times before awarding stars. If the chicken was raw every time, probably wouldn't (certainly shouldn't) give four stars. But once might have been ignored as an anomaly, especially if everything else was fine.

[Pan]

Everything else wasn't exactly fine. I posted about my "Good Friday Dinner" at Bouley at the time.

[John Whiting]

A knowledgeable friend recently commented on this continuing saga:

What's especially amusing about these arguments over whether restaurant X is "good" or not is that restaurants change so much over time, and even from one closely-spaced visit to another. So the foodies are following a transmission with a very low signal-to-noise ratio, and trying, on the basis of one or two samples, to sort out the signal (the "character" or "quality" of the restaurant) from the noise (random events: stagiaire has a head cold, commis chef comes to work drunk, chef is busy taping a Food Network programme). Not an easy task.

He put his finger, I think, on the most laughable aspect of restaurant reviewing. Menus are as ephemeral as cloud formations -- imagine a journalist who recommended that his readers go in search of a particular interplay of light and shade that he had experienced on a particular mountaintop. One of the things I loved about Poilane and his sourdough was his open acknowledgement that, because of the unpredictable interaction of free-floating bacteria, his bread never tasted the same two days in a row.

[fresco]

In that case, I guess the possibility exists that your entire meal was anomalous. Another possibility is that awarding a restaurant four stars helps to ensure that it won't be, by creating a flood of new business that the establishment is not capable of handling in a consistently four-star manner.

Rave reviews have been known to be the ruination of restaurants. Perhaps it works with the Times's star system as well.

[IrishCream]

I wonder. It's a pretty sure thing that the Times visits restaurants a few times before awarding stars. If the chicken was raw every time, probably wouldn't (certainly shouldn't) give four stars. But once might have been ignored as an anomaly, especially if everything else was fine.

Excuse me. But one thing that is NEVER excusable at a restaurant is raw chicken. Raw beef...sure...black and blue won't kill me. Chicken is a different matter. What boggles my mind is how many mistakes my fellow EGers are willing to accept.