Food Writing

[fresco]

With the increasing incidence of e.coli contamination in beef, and increasingly virulent strains of e.coli occurring, I suggest, with respect, that you may want to give that some more thought.

[IrishCream]

Ok... I do not think that journalists exist in a vacuum. I studied journalism in school and I was Managing Editor of my university newspaper. And like every other kid who ever took a journalism class, I learned that full disclosure was absolutely necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the paper. No quibbling, no coyness......if you had any kind of personal relationshiop with the people you were writing about that had to be revealed. No ifs, ands, or buts. It was a very simple rule that journalism students learned.

[IrishCream]

With the increasing incidence of e.coli contamination in beef, and increasingly virulent strains of e.coli occurring, I suggest, with respect, that you may want to give that some more thought.

So beef has become dangerous? No more carpaccio?

[fresco]

With the increasing incidence of e.coli contamination in beef, and increasingly virulent strains of e.coli occurring, I suggest, with respect, that you may want to give that some more thought.

So beef has become dangerous? No more carpaccio?

It's not risk-free.

http://www.ifst.org/hottop1.htm

[oraklet]

the two main risk factors seem to be minced/chopped meat, and cross contamination from raw to prepared food.

on topic, i would not expect a four star (america) or 3 star (france) to be anything but perfect. should it fail to be so, i'd expect an offer of a free meal.

not that i've ever yet eaten in such a place

[kpurvis]

Speaking -- er, writing -- as a journalist at a daily newspaper, I try to follow fairly simple rules. Including this one: "Never do anything you wouldn't want to see printed on your own front page in 72-point type."

But it does get tricky. Food is such a small world that you can't cover it for long without coming to personally know people who are involved in it. Knowing those people gets you information that deepens your stories or even gets your stories period. So your readers benefit.

One principle I try to keep in mind: If I would have a personal qualm reporting that Source X is filing for bankruptcy (all too likely, unfortunately) or has been charged with embezzling or sued for ripping off his investors, I'm probably too close and should either keep away from them as sources, or should disclose my personal relationship in columns or stories.

[Bux]

A fascinating thread, but far longer than the subject really merits, in my opinion. Unfortunately I probably won't be able to leave it alone now and I'm not likely to be more relevent than John Whiting, so I'll try to be as terse and post no more regularly. I'm also likely to fail in both regards. Was it Schneier who said "This is a huge issue?" I believe he and chad presented the best arguments for maximum disclosure, and that he made it rather clear that this was a relative thing. Full disclosure is, quite frankly, impossible, so we are talking about relative degrees of disclosure. Coming from Schneier's posts, I get the opinion that it's also up to the writer to decide what's relative and relevent. Eventually, a writer (journalist, reviewer, etc.) will earn the faith of his readers or not. By the time you've eaten in a few restaurants after reading the reviews, you will begin to have made up your mind about how to accept, dismiss, or read between the lines of future reviews and it's not going to matter much why he was moved to write what he wrote. I am perfectly willing to dismiss rants from anyone who read a rave review, went to the restaurant and had a great meal, but later felt cheated upon learning the reviewer was sleeping with the chef. There are principles and principles. Honesty may be an absolute principle, but full disclosure is not.

I disagree with those who wish to avoid naming names and keep this thread abstract. I think one can often make one's point better by citing a real example and in the interest of "disclosure" I think Fat Guy makes a good target, although all sense of sport is lost once "charges" that are no more than one's subjective view continue to be repeated. I don't know who knew what and when, but nothing's come up about Fat Guy's relationships with which I was unaware at the time I read his Mix post and at the time I responded on that thread before and after I'd eaten there. Fat Guy and I often disagree. We have different perspectives and different values. None of this makes his writing any less interesting or less useful to me. I'm unlikely to learn much that will change my professional regard for his writing, although I understand why others might have wanted to know more earlier rather than later. However, my understanding might not stop me from questioning their focus. I allow for a lot of subjectivity and Fat Guy is just going to have to live with whatever reputation he gets. I assume he already knows he's not going to please everyone all the time anyway. I think it's fair for any individual to express disappointment, it's not reasonable to assume one's disappointment is bound to be based on an absolute principle or of universal interest.

In regard to "full disclosure," I'm quite sensitive to the call for full disclosure in regard to my mentions of Daniel Boulud. After all, my daughter worked for him and married one of his right hand men. On the otherhand, none of this might ever have happened if he didn't open his own restaurant while she was in college and if my wife and didn't agree that his restaurant was our favorite. The was the first time we managed to share the same regard for a single restaurant and we became repeat, if not regular, diners and introduced our daughter to the restaurant by way of a graduation lunch--for which, if I recall correctly, we got my brother-in-law to pay. To make a long story short, we have a situation where my daughter becomes an unpaid stage for six months at my favorite restaurant and I run the risk of not disclosing my affiliation when I speak favorably of the organization that's already getting more than it's giving. My opinion of the food is not influenced by my relationship. My relationship is a product of my opinion of the food. I know of no restaurant where I am known and of which I'd give a favorable opinion that hasn't arisen first out of eating well as an unknown diner. Full disclosure would require me to add that this doesn't represent the extent of my relationship with Daniel Boulud or his organization. I helped him get his first website online and I'm disappointed that he didn't get a lot of what we tried to do when he went with a slicker, but, in my opinion, less communicative design. Actually, I could go on for several pages if "full disclosure" was of real importance. I make no secret that any disclosure is partial disclosure and thus "full disclosure" is usually going to be a red herring.

The most amusing posts on this thread are by those who speak in very abstract terms and who rarely contribute much of importance, but who are always quick to spot places they can leave derogatory comments about the management or the managers. It's just remarkable how someone could respond to a call for disclosure, after being critical of others, with "Discussion with [unidentified] friends about trust and professional ethics." Full disclosure would require me to note that I always feel slighted when they pick on Shaw and not me.

[Bux]

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.

Excuse me, but we may all disagree on what's raw. For instance, I've found the French generally consider a roast chicken done at a point most Americans consider it still uncooked. On eating raw food abroad, here's a mention of chicken sashimi (raw chicken) in Japan.

Raw chicken sashimi is also common in parts of Kyushu and special handling seems to render it salmonella-free and safe for consumption. It is surprisingly tender and tasty.

Raw chicken is neither inherently unhealthy or unpalatable. That the American consumer doesn't demand sashimi quality chicken is another matter. What boggles my mind is how many personal beliefs my fellow members are willing to offer as universal.

[Marlene]

disagree with those who wish to avoid naming names and keep this thread abstract. I think one can often make one's point better by citing a real example and in the interest of "disclosure" I think Fat Guy makes a good target, although all sense of sport is lost once "charges" that are no more than one's subjective view continue to be repeated.

This is the point I was trying to make, obviously not clearly enough

[Sandra Levine]

The most amusing posts on this thread are by those who speak in very abstract terms and who rarely contribute much of importance, but who are always quick to spot places they can leave derogatory comments about the management or the managers. It's just remarkable how someone could respond to a call for disclosure, after being critical of others, with "Discussion with [unidentified] friends about trust and professional ethics."

...as if the two instances were comparable. Res ipsa loquitur.

[IrishCream]

It's just remarkable how someone could respond to a call for disclosure, after being critical of others, with "Discussion with [unidentified] friends about trust and professional ethics."

Bux, I am glad you brought this up. I really do not understand why Rail Paul and Sandra Levine were asked for full disclosure after expressing their opinions on this thread. It wasn't like they wrote a review. They didn't do anything different than Pan, Soba, Marlene, etc. It strikes me as extremely odd.

[tommy]

where did i leave my white elephant. i could have sworn it was right in the middle of the living room.

[IrishCream]

Don't you mean a pink elephant?

[tommy]

Don't you mean a pink elephant?  

both, i think, are commonly used. but if it makes you feel better, yeah, you're right, i meant "pink".

Edited December 18, 2003 by tommy (log)

[marcus]

The question comes down to where does one draw the line as to when disclosure is necessary. Based on the variety of opinions that have already been stated. it's clear that this is a gray area. I personally do believe that in this case my line was crossed.

My personal reaction to FG's review of MIX was that it was over the top, that FG was currying favor, and I discounted the review. I also found the derogation of the other food critics to be outrageous. However, it did not raise any ethical issues in my mind. FG's liking for and relationship with Ducasse are well known, and although I may not fully approve, I understand the give and take of favors that exists within the community. To position myself, I'm one of those who believe that anonymity in restaurant reviewing is very important.

However, the uncovering of the author/agent relationship with the chef's brother introduces a direct commercial element that I find to be fundamentally different, and does create the appearance of a possible ethical question. I believe that in principle this should have been disclosed in the initial review.

[Pan]

on topic, i would not expect a four star (america) or 3 star (france) to be anything but perfect. should it fail to be so, i'd expect an offer of a free meal.

My brother's meal was in fact comped at Bouley, but that didn't make up for our disappointment at the quality of the meal.

[Pan]

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.

Excuse me, but we may all disagree on what's raw.

Bux, there's absolutely zero chance you or anyone else here would have considered the tip of that chicken anything but raw, and the dish was not described on the menu as chicken sashimi. The waiter was genuinely shocked that the chicken was raw.

[John Whiting]

What boggles my mind is how many personal beliefs my fellow members are willing to offer as universal.

A cursory glance at Calvin W. Schwabe's _Unmentionable Cuisine_ should convince even the most dogmatic that the world's dietary preferences are about as rational as its religious convictions.

[Bux]

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.

Excuse me, but we may all disagree on what's raw.

Bux, there's absolutely zero chance you or anyone else here would have considered the tip of that chicken anything but raw, and the dish was not described on the menu as chicken sashimi. The waiter was genuinely shocked that the chicken was raw.

Sorry for any confusion I did not mean to imply that there was any thought that your chicken was properly or even acceptably prepared at Bouley. My reply was meant to comment on the assumption that it is never acceptable to serve raw chicken. In fact, raw chicken is not only excusable, but expected in some places, if not in Bouley.

To bring this into the context of the thread, I don't think it's acceptable for a reviewer to ignore the fact that he, or anyone he dined with, was served raw chicken, when they ordered cooked chicken. While he can't ignore it, he also needn't mention it. Space is usually limited and even if when writing in eGullet one has all the room one can take, one needs to keep the reader's focus and thus a good writer needs to choose his details carefully. No one will ever convince me that mistakes don't happen at the best restaurants. How they are handled may speak more about a restaurant's greatness than the fact that I don't get to see the mistakes. If I've had ten superb meals at a restaurant and in the course of my eleventh meal, I was served less than fully cooked chicken, or chicken that was raw in whole or part, and the management acted in a way that made me believe they were shocked at what happened and did as much as possible to recover a wonderful experience for me and compensate me for my displeasure, I might make no more note of the fact other than to say that only once in eleven meals was anything less than perfect and then compliment management for setting that right without the need to get into any details.

My point in all this is that people are going to eventually have respect for a critic or not, on the basis of many things. John Whiting's "A critic needn't be virtuous, only accurate," seems right on target with my thoughts. If I go to a reastaurant on the basis of a review, I want to have the meal the review led me to expect I would have. In the end, does it matter if the critic has been to the restaurant or if he's lying through his teeth as long as he's accurate.

Consider this, if I knew a chef was a scoundrel, I might not want to eat at his restaurant and I might not want to recommend it, but I wouldn't lie about his food. What would my responsibilities be as a critic reviewing that restaurant?

[Bux]

Ok... I do not think that journalists exist in a vacuum. I studied journalism in school and I was Managing Editor of my university newspaper. And like every other kid who ever took a journalism class, I learned that full disclosure was absolutely necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the paper. No quibbling, no coyness......if you had any kind of personal relationshiop with the people you were writing about that had to be revealed. No ifs, ands, or buts. It was a very simple rule that journalism students learned.

I don't think journalism students are the majority of food journalists and certainly not the majority or restaurant reviewers. That may or may not be part of the problem. Of course there are many who would argue that restaurant reviews are not journalism.

[Pan]

Your responsibilities are always to attempt in good faith to be accurate and fair. But allow me to wonder whether I'll get the same food and service that Fat Guy did if I go to Mix. If there are various reasons why he could have been served particularly good food there, that might explain why he seems to have a higher opinion of that establishment than some other people do. And I'm mindful of that when considering the reception New York Times critics get at the restaurants they rate 4 stars, as opposed to the reception I've gotten. You can say it's coincidental that I'm 0-3 at New York Times 4-stars, but those are my experiences, and I don't have the money to go to Bouley 11 times and see if they get it right the other 10 times. I'd rather go somewhere else. Amma, for example, didn't get 4 stars in the Times, but has been rated highly by absolutely everyone whose review has been printed or posted, so I think I'll much sooner splurge a little and go there than take my chances with a place whose service is apparently spotty and desserts weak, for example.

Edited December 19, 2003 by Pan (log)

[Bux]

The most amusing posts on this thread are by those who speak in very abstract terms and who rarely contribute much of importance, but who are always quick to spot places they can leave derogatory comments about the management or the managers. It's just remarkable how someone could respond to a call for disclosure, after being critical of others, with "Discussion with [unidentified] friends about trust and professional ethics."

...as if the two instances were comparable. Res ipsa loquitur.

I'll agree the facts speak for themselves, but we'll have to agree that we disagree on what they say. My private mail suggests there is enough ground for comparison, especially under the circumstances.

[tommy]

Amma, for example, didn't get 4 stars in the Times, but has been rated highly by absolutely everyone whose review has been printed or posted, so I think I'll much sooner splurge a little and go there than take my chances with a place whose service is apparently spotty and desserts weak, for example.

and one should assume that making oneself known to the restaurant might be necessary to achieve the level of service and perhaps food that those glowing reviews suggested.

[Sandra Levine]

My private mail suggests there is enough ground for comparison, especially under the circumstances.

I'm plotzing.

[Pan]

Amma, for example, didn't get 4 stars in the Times, but has been rated highly by absolutely everyone whose review has been printed or posted, so I think I'll much sooner splurge a little and go there than take my chances with a place whose service is apparently spotty and desserts weak, for example.

and one should assume that making oneself known to the restaurant might be necessary to achieve the level of service and perhaps food that those glowing reviews suggested.

Good point, Tommy, and I do intend to make my identity known whenever I go to Amma. That said, the fact that no-one but no-one has had anything but high praise for the restaurant suggests to me that if I dine there anonymously, I'll get good food and pleasant service.