Food Writing

[Chad]

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.

Dave, I don't think that the point is whether or not a reviewer can write an honest review. Only he knows that. The reader, however, has to make a decision about whether or not to trust a reviewer. It may not be an explicit thought -- "Do I trust this guy's opinion about food?" But the question is always there, as it is with anything we read that contains a judgement about something's worth. We tote up our experiences, compare them with the reviewer's and decide if he's full of shit or not.

That judgment of the judgment, as it were, is based on our working knowledge of the topic, the reviewer and his track record. Any trust that the reviewer has built up with us can be all too easily destroyed by a perception of bias. Note the word perception. An undisclosed relationship can create that perception. If our past experience is that the reviewer is not affected or biased by relationships ("I was this chef's best man, but I gotta tell you that his minestrone sucked the night I was at the restaurant") we'll not be swayed by his revelation somewhere in the article that he has a relationship with a chef or restaurant -- and by relationship I think we all mean more than a professional acquaintance. If we don't have that experience with a reviewer, then an unrevealed relationship that later surfaces can look pretty damning.

Chad

edits: Damn, I can't spell today

[Chad]

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

Oy, too many political campaigns as media/PR guy make you paranoid 'bout things like perceived biases and relationships. Even though relationships are the most important things in politics -- you cannot get anything done without them -- you don't want any surprises hitting the general public.

[Fat Guy]

Chad, I entirely agree with the point about perception, however I believe such perceptions are unjustified and based on a misunderstanding of the realities of journalism, and therefore need to be argued against rather than accommodated.

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.

And yet the disclosure is irrelevant to the issue that it purportedly addresses: regardless of when or whether the disclosure is made, the chef and the critic are still brothers-in-law; whatever bias there may be will be there either way, and if it exists the review should not be written. If there is no bias, the disclosure primarily serves to raise the suspicion that there is bias. Or it can be a cover for bias; some readers are naive enough to believe (as some journalists hope they will) that disclosure negates bias.

I hope I'm not alone in agreeing with the sammy-chad psychological analysis of what some readers will think yet believing that reaction to lack sound underlying reasoning. And if it is simply a matter of perception -- and incorrect perception at that -- then I think of it as something that perhaps a publicist should embrace, but that a journalist should fight.

[Fat Guy]

Busboy, a good economic analysis of the situation. I think there are a couple of defects in it, however, the primary one being that an opportunity-cost analysis of a writer's motivations is likely to fail. Certainly in the case of our current Q&A guest, Jeffrey Steingarten, he could be making 10 times as much money as an attorney. The opportunity-cost train left the station many years ago, and Jeffrey never looked back. So for him to sell out for minor benefits to his writing career would seem beyond absurd to me. Likewise, most food writers I know are smart enough to be earning a lot more money doing something else in one of the white-collar professions -- but they've chosen to be contrarians and pursue personally fulfilling careers rather than those which provide money, power, and influence. The other place I think there's a flaw in your presentation is at the conclusion: "In an imperfect world, reasonable disclosure makes reasonable sense." That sounds good, but as I've tried to argue a couple of times now it doesn't actually get to the heart of the bias issue. It also doesn't define the scope of reasonable disclosure, a concept the absurdity of which becomes more clear the more time you spend trying to draw lines about whether or not you have to disclose that you had sex with the busboy. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

[sammy]

If there is no bias, the disclosure primarily serves to raise the suspicion that there is bias. Or it can be a cover for bias; some readers are naive enough to believe (as some journalists hope they will) that disclosure negates bias.

But isn't this dilemna overcome when the reader goes to eat the food and then either agrees or disagrees with the writer's assessment, also taking into account how the reader assessed the writer's reviews after eating in other reviewed restaurants?

[Pan]

I'm generally in favor of disclosure, for the reasons others have already stated, but it's up to the reviewer to decide whether to disclose that he's had sex with the coat-check.

[Dave the Cook]

I hope I'm not alone in agreeing with the sammy-chad psychological analysis of what some readers will think yet believing that reaction to lack sound underlying reasoning. And if it is simply a matter of perception -- and incorrect perception at that -- then I think of it as something that perhaps a publicist should embrace, but that a journalist should fight.

I agree with this.

But I also have to again point out the practical difficulties in trying to uncover bias:

1. My sister is the chef.

2. I hate my sister.

3. But I can forgive anyone who can make a great pasta fazool, and she's an amazing cook.

4. Except that time when she poisoned our little brother with blowfish.

5. But it was a blessing, because he was terminally ill and faced an agonizing end.

[Busboy]

It also doesn't define the scope of reasonable disclosure, a concept the absurdity of which becomes more clear the more time you spend trying to draw lines about whether or not you have to disclose that you had sex with the busboy. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

It's been my experience that nobody has sex with the busboy, dammit!

It would be too easy to turn this into a third-rate economics thesis, so I'll make one response and lurk until I feel compelled to jump in again: Compensation and opportunity cost can both be non-monetary. The rewards of choosing a food-writer career and moving in the food world as a professional and, at least minor, "name" can be as important to one person as a large paycheck are to another. Just because they are harder to quantify, doesn't mean that they don't affect behavior in the same way.

(of course, as in my earlier post there are many ways to view how an action can affect a career etc., etc.)

[Fat Guy]

I certainly agree with that, Busboy. And if nobody else will, I'll sleep with you.

[Dave the Cook]

I certainly agree with that, Busboy. And if nobody else will, I'll sleep with you.

Just as long as it's disclosed where appropriate.

[Chad]

Chad, I entirely agree with the point about perception, however I believe such perceptions are unjustified and based on a misunderstanding of the realities of journalism, and therefore need to be argued against rather than accommodated.

No argument from me. But I don't believe that saying "You, the general public, just don't understand how journalism works" is going to get us very far.

The fact of the matter is that the trust level that the public places in the media (all media) has plummeted. Gone are the days when Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America.

The reality of the current distrust of the media cannot be ignored, no matter how we might feel about it. This applies, albeit somewhat peripherally, even to food writers. We can work to change that, but it's going to be a long, slow process. And we can change those perceptions, regain that trust, only by being above board and honest. Anything that reduces that trust level -- a heretofore undisclosed relationship that casts doubt on the credibility of a restaurant review, for example -- slows the process of change.

We may yet again come to a time when the public realizes that a journalist has friends, has a network and has relationships that help him do his job better, or have nothing at all to do with the way he does his job. But surprise revelations of those relationships -- especially if they are seen to have an impact on a story the journalist has written -- don't help. In my opinion, disclosure is not a red herring. It is a way to get those things out in the open so the public can make up its own mind about the potential impact.

Chad

[fresco]

I'm not sure there has ever been a time when journalists were held in generally high esteem. Cronkite was the exception, and no doubt he had his detractors.

[Fat Guy]

Chad, I respectfully disagree. I do not think journalists should buy into a false system for the benefit of public relations. I think they should use their talents as writers to explain why the system is a bad one. To me, this is the same as the anonymity issue that persistently hangs over restaurant reviewing: we'll never get rid of it unless reviewers start being up front about why it's bogus. As long as the Ruth Reichls of the world make a big show of auctioning off their wigs and disguises, even though they know they are recognized everywhere they dine, they will be complicit in a journalistic sham. I don't believe we should go down that road. I don't care if anonymity has been shown to gain the public's trust. Long-term, it's a recipe for failure.

[tommy]

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

it seems like readers would catch on, and the writer wouldn't have much of a career. it fixes itself in that regard.

[ronnie_suburban]

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

it seems like readers would catch on, and the writer wouldn't have much of a career. it fixes itself in that regard.

I agree. Over time you get a feel for most reviewers you read frequently. A tendency develops and you know whether you generally agree or disagree with certain reviewers. In that context, a writer's potential bias becomes a smaller issue. All writers have biases--and not all writers always recognize their own. Disclosure isn't always an option.

In the end, the reader must decide if the writer has credibility via the writing and the opinions stated therein, regardless of whatever issues may be looming in the background. Biases aside, if I read 10 reviews by the same writer and disagree with most of them, the reasons why my opinion differs aren't nearly as important as simply recognizing that they do. In that respect, an unreasonably or abusively biased reviewer isn't destined to be around very long. It is self-policing.

=R=

[Chad]

To me, this is the same as the anonymity issue that persistently hangs over restaurant reviewing: we'll never get rid of it unless reviewers start being up front about why it's bogus. As long as the Ruth Reichls of the world make a big show of auctioning off their wigs and disguises, even though they know they are recognized everywhere they dine, they will be complicit in a journalistic sham. I don't believe we should go down that road. I don't care if anonymity has been shown to gain the public's trust. Long-term, it's a recipe for failure.

FG, I agree with you on the issue of anonymity. It is silly and pointless. And it does perpetuate the problem.

Now, to tackle your other point.

Chad, I respectfully disagree. I do not think journalists should buy into a false system for the benefit of public relations. I think they should use their talents as writers to explain why the system is a bad one.

I don't see this as a PR issue so much as a pragmatic solution that gets us closer to where we want to be.

Let's assume for a moment that you're my tax attorney. I want to file separate returns for all my multiple personalities . You, as my professional advisor, counsel me against that. There may be very valid reasons to file separately. The tax system might be seriously flawed and biased against schizophrenics. The whole system might be dead wrong. BUT, you, my attorney, have to deal with the system as it stands. Together we might work to change it for the betterment of all sufferers of multiple personality disorder. We can certainly make our case. In the meantime, making a principled stand against the system is going to get us both thrown in jail.

In a similar fashion, trying to overhaul the perceptions of the entire populace is going to take some work. Trying to overcome those perceptions by ignoring them or flauting them is a recipe for failure, in my opinion. Giving the public the tools to make up their own mind, e.g. disclosing relationships, builds credibility and moves us forward.

Chad

(geez, why do I suddenly feel like Rick Bayless? )

[sammy]

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

it seems like readers would catch on, and the writer wouldn't have much of a career. it fixes itself in that regard.

I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion. But then you are saying that you don't care to distinguish between reviewers you simply don't agree with and those that may employ questionable ethics.

[sammy]

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

it seems like readers would catch on, and the writer wouldn't have much of a career. it fixes itself in that regard.

I hear what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion. But then you are saying that you don't care to distinguish between reviewers you simply don't agree with and those that may employ questionable ethics.

Since Chad brought Bayless up, were we peeved at him for simply endorsing a lousy sandwich that we didn't think tasted good? I think the bigger issue was questionable ethics.

[tommy]

But then you are saying that you don't care to distinguish between reviewers you simply don't agree with and those that may employ questionable ethics.

no, i'm saying that i'll probably not be following the reviews of those with "questionable ethics" as they won't be around for long.

it should be noted that i've had dinner with steven shaw on several occasions and we sometimes PM each other. i do find him a pain in the ass at times as well.

[sammy]

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?

This is not an accusation, simply a possibility in response to your lack of imagination shown in your post above.

Say said literary agent has a better success rate pitching books at a particular publishing house. Said agent's brother is chef at a new restaurant. Prospective author would like to hire said literary agent but agent is too busy and not accepting writers that have not previously had any books published. Prospective author gives agent's brother's restaurant rave review. Connect the dots.

[sammy]

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?

This is not an accusation, simply a possibility in response to your lack of imagination shown in your post above.

Say said literary agent has a better success rate pitching books at a particular publishing house. Said agent's brother is chef at a new restaurant. Prospective author would like to hire said literary agent but agent is too busy and not accepting writers that have not previously had any books published. Prospective author gives agent's brother's restaurant rave review. Connect the dots.

I'd argue that the above scenario is what some readers might think of when they find out about the relationship some time AFTER reading the review. A reader may ask, why didn't he disclose it upfront?

I doubt anyone would think of that scenario if the relationship was disclosed WITHIN or BEFORE reading the review, especially with a reviewer that they had come to trust as objective in the past.

[Schneier]

This is a huge issue.

To answer the opening question: you should disclose things that your readers think should have been disclosed.

Here's an example. In this thread I just learned that Fat Guy has a personal relationship with Alain Ducasse and Michael Psaltis. When I read that I was stunned. I had read his writings on Ducasse and Mix and...I should have been told that.

This metric has nothing to do with Fat Guy's ethics, his bias, or his reviews. It's simply a matter of not surprising the reader. Whether it's a politician, a sports figure, or a restaurant reviewer, you don't want the voter/fan/foodie saying: "Hey. Why wasn't I told that?"

That being said, actually following through is very difficult.

The world is a small place. Anyone who writes/speaks about a topic is bound to have thousands of potential conflicts of interest, some more obvious than others and some larger than others, and it's hard to know where to draw the line. These days almost anything could be viewed as a conflict of interest. Sometimes things that some of never imagined to be conflicts of interest turn out to be. (What do you mean Fat Guy and Psaltis live within 20 miles of each other!?)

In the end, you have to trust the integrity of the writer/speaker. If you trust the person, then you don't need any disclosure. If you don't trust him, then no amount of disclosure will convince you otherwise. But the point of disclosure is to keep the reader/listener from bring surprised.

Bruce

[slkinsey]

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.

Everyone is biased. You call them "preferences" and I call them biases. Reviewers, being humans, are necessarily biased. Anyone who pays attention to reviews of any kind either does or should understand this. In my own business, for example, it is widely known that a certain critic at the New York Times will never give Renee Fleming anything other than a positive review. Whether or not he is being paid off by her recording company, is a diva-worshiping fan or a personal friend to Ms. Fleming really doesn't matter. What matters is that those of us who read the opera reviews rewcognize this bias and do not consider his reviews to be indicative of the real quality of her performance.

To make another example, it should be quite clear to most of us by now that Steven is an admirer of Alain Ducasse and his restaurants. This is not to say that he is dishonest when writing about his experiences of Ducasse's food or in his restaurants, and I am sure he would point out things he didn't like. But we already know that Ducasse's overall style of cooking, approach to food and ideas about how to run a restaurant are admired by Steven. This is a bias, and to a certain extent the knowledge of that bias colors the inferences I make from his reviews of Ducasse establishments. Why? Because I have no way of knowing whether my tastes are the same as Steven's in this regard. I won't know until Steven pays for me to go to AD/NY and Mix a dozen times -- an experiment I would be willing to try for the sake of the site. However, if he wrote a regular review column in the New York Times, and I tried a bunch of the restaurants he reviewed and had markedly different reactions than his, I would know that he was a reviewer whose tastes and preferences (i.e., biases) did not accord with mine. As a result, I would not pay too much attention to his reviews in the future -- just like I don't pay attention to Fleming reviews by the abovementioned Times critic.

A reviewer who allows his reviews to be unduly influenced by personal relationships in the restaurant business will quickly reveal himself as such to his readers. Therefore, I agree with Steven that it only clouds the issue to make such disclosure (among who knows how many others) on an individual review basis.

[Chad]

This metric has nothing to do with Fat Guy's ethics, his bias, or his reviews.  It's simply a matter of not surprising the reader.  Whether it's a politician, a sports figure, or a restaurant reviewer, you don't want the voter/fan/foodie saying: "Hey.  Why wasn't I told that?"

Bingo! This is an excellent point, one that we have been talking around but hadn't quite hit until now. The problem is not that relationships exist. Of course they do. And anyone with half a brain realizes that.

It's when those relationships pop up unexpectedly and potentially have an impact on something a journalist has written that we become suspicious -- why didn't we know that before? Why was he hiding that?

Disclosure solves a lot of those problems. An example:

I'm Chef Chad, host of a new FTV show Put It in Your Mouth! My wife works for the giant, yet shadowy, soy sauce lobby.

On my show I exhort viewers to call their congressmen to lift sanctions on artisinal soy sauces because they'll never be able to make my wasabi brownies without it. A news story appears later featuring my wife as spokesperson for the soy sauce lobby. A good reporter (or even a thinking reader) puts two and two together and I look like a lying whore, even if I believe strongly in artisinal soy sauces and haven't spoken to my wife in months.

If, on the other hand, I said during the show, "My wife works in the soy sauce industry, and I've been appalled to learn what hardships soy sauce ranchers have to endure to get their products into this country," and go on to demo my wasabi brownies, I've disclosed the relationship and even turned it into a positive.

In many cases that disclosure can be turned into a positive. You have back-room, exclusive information that no other writer has. And by being open about the relationship you forestall any chance of the relationship surprising anyone later -- and causing doubts about your credibility.

Chad

(pawn of the Bacon Lobby)

[slkinsey]

Nice points, Chad. Obviously there do exist certain issues that do lend themselves to disclosure. Fundamentally that is something that is left up to the reviewer, tv personality, reporter, or whatever. Why? Because ultimately it's their reputation and career they're playing around with. If it comes out that a reviewer who has been plugging a restaurant most people think is mediocre at best is married to the owner's sister... well, he'll pay for that with his reputation (which is, by the way, his most salable commodity) and ultimately his career. To go back to my earlier example of our own Mr. Shaw, discovering that his agent is the brother of one of Ducasse's chefs doesn't lead me to question the integrity of his comments regarding Ducasse's establishments in the slightest. Why? Because he has build up a certain store of trust in me that he is not unduly swayed by such relationships by not shying away from critical commentary in the past relating to businesses and people with whom he has such relationships.