Critic sued by Restaurant

[MobyP]

In today's This is London (subscription required) it's reported that Shepherds Restaurant is taking unbrage at a recent review by Mathew Norman in the Sunday Telegraph (no link available), describing his article as "vituperative diatribe" containing "wrong, unfair and defamatory allegations". They are now considering taking Norman to court.

This is London goes on to report Norman as writing: "The decor was "fake, dreary, cheap and pompous"; the vinaigrette with his cold asparagus was "an insipid, feckless mayonnaise" that made him wish he had had Hellman's; and the crab and brandy soup reminded him of one of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ("When I say... that were it found in a canister buried in the Iraqi desert, it would save Tony Blair's skin, I exaggerate only slightly"). It was, he concluded, the "eighth circle of hell"."

What do we think?

Can critics go too far? Should restaurants have the ability to seek renumeration?

[Moopheus]

I have to say, it shows, uh, questionable judgment on the part of the reviewer. Not having been to the restaurant described, my impression is that the rhetoric is rather excessive and makes me think that the reviewer has had a very, very pampered existence.

But this is not necessarily sufficient for a defamation claim. After all, if reviewers are not allowed to state their opinions, however harsh or unfair, then any system of independent review is weakened, and would have nasty First-Amendment repurcussions. For this reason, opinion is generally protected from libel claims. In US law at least, some issue of substantive fact must be at stake (laws vary by state). On the other hand, to quote from The Copyright, Permission and Libel Hanbook, "However, many courts will rule that if a review or critique is made in bad faith or maliciously, and it does not represent the critic's honest opinion, the review may not be protected from defamation claims." If, for example, the reviewer wrote an overly harsh review because he had a personal agenda against the owner, that might be libel.

UK law is different; it's much more sympathetic to the complainant. There are plenty of instances of authors being sued in Britain for material that passed unchallenged in the US.

[Chris Cognac]

I think that the only way a place should be able to seek litigation/compensation is when said location can prove malicious intent on the part of the reviewer, otherwise he/she is mearly expressing said opinion...and we all know what those are like!

[Lady T]

I can't answer for anyone else, but I've had the continuing impression that food writing/restaurant reviewing in Britain is fiercer and more over-the-top than in the common practice here, just as a matter of genre. Seen in that context, Norman's rhetoric isn't all that far 'out there.'

Without knowing British libel law, I couldn't say what kind of chances Shepherds has of getting anywhere in court. My (uninformed) suspicion is that the case will go nowhere unless Shepherds can (1) prove malice and (2) present proof that this allegedly malicious article did some substantial damage to their business. Not likely.

My strong hunch is: it's just PR noise. It gets Shepherds' name into the papers, and Norman's name too.

[Busboy]

The few times I've been to England I've found that what at first seem to be witty bashings of substandard offerings -- be it music, arts, or restaurants -- soon become tiresomely snide phillipics with no apparent point other than to demonstrate the authors "wit" and his class solidarity (the greater the posh the greater the bash).

This seems like yet another exercise in empty agression, I feel sure that British readers recognize it for what it is, if even a yank can spot it.

[fresco]

I'll bet that this never gets to court, because there is an excellent chance the restaurant will lose. It's a dumb move, because it enhances the critic's reputation and simply establishes that the restaurant proprietor is thin skinned and litigious.

[stephenc]

"The decor was "fake, dreary, cheap and pompous"; the vinaigrette with his cold asparagus was "an insipid, feckless mayonnaise" that made him wish he had had Hellman's; and the crab and brandy soup reminded him of one of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ("When I say... that were it found in a canister buried in the Iraqi desert, it would save Tony Blair's skin, I exaggerate only slightly"). It was, he concluded, the "eighth circle of hell"."

This accurately describes 90% of the restaurants in London

[Lady T]

"The decor was "fake, dreary, cheap and pompous"; the vinaigrette with his cold asparagus was "an insipid, feckless mayonnaise" that made him wish he had had Hellman's; and the crab and brandy soup reminded him of one of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ("When I say... that were it found in a canister buried in the Iraqi desert, it would save Tony Blair's skin, I exaggerate only slightly"). It was, he concluded, the "eighth circle of hell"."

This accurately describes 90% of the restaurants in London

I'd've pegged that at 75% to 80%, remembering some marvelous Chinese and Indian meals I've had in London -- but point taken, just the same.

[edsel]

It's extremely difficult to win a case of libel in the US courts, but I've heard that libel law in the UK is less demanding of the plaintiff. I vaguely recall some accounts of people chosing to sue international news organizations in the UK rather than here for that reason.

How does one prove the intent of the reviewer? Unless s/he was foolish enough to post a message to the effect of "I hate these people. I'm going to slag them off regardless of the quality of their food", isn't the review simply the opinion of the reviewer? Regardless of how over-the-top the language may be....

Oh, and Busboy, even us yanks can spot naked aggression if it's sufficiently unsubtle.

[bandregg]

Here is a reprint of a NY Times article on English Food Critics and their over the top verbage. My preference is for a review which tells me something about what the reader is likely to experience at the restaurant, not how the well known reviewer wasn't kowtowed to enough.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archi...1/10/2003075370

[ExtraMSG]

I can't answer for anyone else, but I've had the continuing impression that food writing/restaurant reviewing in Britain is fiercer and more over-the-top than in the common practice here, just as a matter of genre. Seen in that context, Norman's rhetoric isn't all that far 'out there.'

Without knowing British libel law, I couldn't say what kind of chances Shepherds has of getting anywhere in court. My (uninformed) suspicion is that the case will go nowhere unless Shepherds can (1) prove malice and (2) present proof that this allegedly malicious article did some substantial damage to their business. Not likely.

My strong hunch is: it's just PR noise. It gets Shepherds' name into the papers, and Norman's name too.

I think it's just part of the overall difference between American journalism and European journalism. We generally think we're at least supposed to try to be fair and objective. That's falling away a bit, but it's still true to a large extent and readers still expect the attempt. I don't think that expectation exists in Europe. So you're going to find the most exteme examples in places where even we would expect an opinion, like movie and food reviews.

I think a reviewer should be able to say anything that is opinion-based. If the reviewer started saying seriously that something was unhealthy, poisonous, that they got food poisoning, that there were rat turds in it, etc, then they open themselves up based on fact. If they're just saying it tastes like crap, though, if they're wrong they'll hurt their own reputations and be discredited anyway.

[lala]

Restaurant reviews in England are as much a blood sport as hunting. While living there, I read the guy in the Times on Sunday, who was incredibly mean spirited. While the Brits pretend to be civilized, they do indulge in the nastiest journalism I've ever seen. Many types of reviews are all about inventing new, bitchy things to say about restaurants, plays, concerts, etc. It's appalling.

[MobyP]

Restaurant reviews in England are as much a blood sport as hunting. While living there, I read the guy in the Times on Sunday, who was incredibly mean spirited. While the Brits pretend to be civilized, they do indulge in the nastiest journalism I've ever seen.

Well, as Busboy mentioned with philippics, from Athens on down, the two have never been mutually exclusive. In fact you could say that historically, civilization has been defined by the very bitchiness - whether against restaurants or in the hands of Demosthenes - that you hold to be uncivilised.

Having said that, A A Gill from the Times (who you mention) has few friends in my neighborhood.

[circeplum]

"The decor was "fake, dreary, cheap and pompous"; the vinaigrette with his cold asparagus was "an insipid, feckless mayonnaise" that made him wish he had had Hellman's; and the crab and brandy soup reminded him of one of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ("When I say... that were it found in a canister buried in the Iraqi desert, it would save Tony Blair's skin, I exaggerate only slightly"). It was, he concluded, the "eighth circle of hell"."

This accurately describes 90% of the restaurants in London

serves you right for eating in angus steak houses

don't think you're quite up to speed with the new millennium, are you?

[Mrs Woman]

This story was also reported by the Sunday Telegraph itse;f last weekend. And a letter to the paper here defending Shepherd's

[Fat Guy]

I'm no expert on British law, or even American law for that matter, but my general sense is that not only would the plaintiff definitely lose this case but also it would be a resounding loss.

Defamation law is one of the only areas where it's easier for a plaintiff to build a case in the UK than in the US. In most other areas, such as personal injury, the standard is quite high. But the way in which issues of free speech, press, etc., have been treated in the UK has allowed defamation law to progress in such a way as to make the whole area different. But that doesn't mean it's easy to win a defamation case in the UK. It's actually quite difficult.

In addition, balanced against the easier standard for defamation claims is the "English rule," which holds that the loser in a court case typically pays the other side's legal fees (this is not always the case anymore, but it's still the baseline standard). For the most part, under the "American rule," where each party pays his own fees, frivolous litigation isn't particularly costly. Under the English system, you need to be a lot more certain of your chances of victory. There are far fewer experimental fishing-expedition-type lawsuits filed in the UK than in the US.

But aside from differences in US and UK defamation law, both nations' laws are in agreement on the basic distinction between fact and opinion: there is rarely such a thing as a false opinion, and therefore only in truly exceptional circumstances could a defamation action ever be brought for an expression of opinion. Indeed, to allow defamation actions against statements of opinion -- essentially making some opinions illegal -- would be antithetical to the political philosophy of every democratic nation.

This restaurateur is angry. It's a sign of the times that, today, when people are angry they think the solution is a lawsuit. Most of the time, though, it isn't. And even more often, it shouldn't be.

There doesn't appear to be a single word in this review that could be taken seriously as a hook for a defamation claim.

The other reason the restaurant would lose the lawsuit has to do with resources: the entire media community (and the civil liberties community) would close ranks were an opinion columnist to be at risk of losing a defamation case for making harsh statements of opinion. The best legal minds would be sent out to crush the opposition, because the potential precedent would be viewed as so fundamentally reprehensible.

As for the statement cited above from The Copyright, Permission and Libel Hanbook, "However, many courts will rule that if a review or critique is made in bad faith or maliciously, and it does not represent the critic's honest opinion, the review may not be protected from defamation claims." -- I wonder, are there actual examples of these "many courts" that have actually made such rulings, or is this just a theoretical admonition to play it safe? I'd be very interested to see the precedent in UK law for ruling against a critic on the basis of a bad-faith review.

[Chad]

Yup, the reviewer has every right to his opinion. And I find the British reviews a lot of fun to read as the reviewers try to trump one another with witty invective. However, this paragraph from the Sunday Telegraph stopped me dead in my tracks:

"This was my third visit to Shepherds. The first was five or six years ago and I remember a vague determination never to go again. I had lunch there last summer, however. I thought of reviewing it then, but decided to give it another chance. Which brings us to the lunch described in the magazine."

What? Three meals in six years? And the review only based on one of them?

He fucked this restaurant on the basis of one meal? That is completely irresponsible, unprofessional and obnoxious. He may win a lawsuit, but somebody needs to take him out back and explain professional journalism to him -- preferably with the blunt end of a pool cue.

Chad

[lala]

Restaurant reviews in England are as much a blood sport as hunting. While living there, I read the guy in the Times on Sunday, who was incredibly mean spirited. While the Brits pretend to be civilized, they do indulge in the nastiest journalism I've ever seen.

Well, as Busboy mentioned with philippics, from Athens on down, the two have never been mutually exclusive. In fact you could say that historically, civilization has been defined by the very bitchiness - whether against restaurants or in the hands of Demosthenes - that you hold to be uncivilised.

Having said that, A A Gill from the Times (who you mention) has few friends in my neighborhood.

True, but it's really vicious in England, and defeats the purpose of actually reveiwing the restaurant! It's all about the supposed 'cleverness' of the reveiwer, not the restaurant, and makes it difficult to use the review to decide whether or not to actually go to the restaurant.

[robyn]

What? Three meals in six years? And the review only based on one of them?

He fucked this restaurant on the basis of one meal? That is completely irresponsible, unprofessional and obnoxious. He may win a lawsuit, but somebody needs to take him out back and explain professional journalism to him -- preferably with the blunt end of a pool cue.

Chad

Well - what do you reckon the number of meals/percentage ought to be?

I don't know about this particular restaurant - but if I'm spending $100-200 for 2 on dinner (without liquor) - don't you think I ought to have a very high percentage chance of getting a really good meal? Like close to 100%?

Everyone says "anyplace can have an off night". But if I'm the person who's out 200 bucks - that doesn't give me much consolation. I expect consistency in restaurants (particularly in those that charge a lot of money for the privilege of dining with them).

Perhaps journalists dining with OPM can afford to eat a half dozen times in an expensive restaurant to determine if they will get one decent meal. As far as I'm concerned - if I spend 200 bucks and it sucks - that restaurant is out of the game.

I would like a show of hands here. Who has spent more than $100 of his/her own money on a meal for 2 that sucked - and then returned to the same place 1 or more times to make sure that his/her initial impression of the place was correct. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

In the best of all possible worlds, you'd have highlighted the difference between the way a critic eats and the way a consumer eats. Because as much as it irritates most people, any place can have an off night. Even the best restaurants in the world will have off nights. There's nothing that can be done about it, and somebody has to be on the receiving end of the meal that sucks. So, the division between the role of the critic and the role of the consumer becomes useful: the critic theoretically can maintain a bit of emotional distance if a meal isn't good (particularly at a brand-new restaurant) and can inform the consumer of the restaurant's range of potential.

In reality, unfortunately, most newspaper critics are barely well financed enough to pay for one meal at a restaurant. At some of the smaller outlets, the critics are essentially hobbyists who get a small subsidy to dine out once a week. At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves. Only at a very few of the most financially and critically robust journals are critics able to spend the 3 or 4 grand a week that it costs to take 4-6 people to a restaurant 3-5 times every week (not to mention the restaurants that are visited but ultimately not reviewed).

So, there is little question that many critics can, will, and have no choice but to base reviews on a single visit. We can complain about it, but not realistically.

[robyn]

In the best of all possible worlds, you'd have highlighted the difference between the way a critic eats and the way a consumer eats. Because as much as it irritates most people, any place can have an off night. Even the best restaurants in the world will have off nights. There's nothing that can be done about it, and somebody has to be on the receiving end of the meal that sucks. So, the division between the role of the critic and the role of the consumer becomes useful: the critic theoretically can maintain a bit of emotional distance if a meal isn't good (particularly at a brand-new restaurant) and can inform the consumer of the restaurant's range of potential.

In reality, unfortunately, most newspaper critics are barely well financed enough to pay for one meal at a restaurant. At some of the smaller outlets, the critics are essentially hobbyists who get a small subsidy to dine out once a week. At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves. Only at a very few of the most financially and critically robust journals are critics able to spend the 3 or 4 grand a week that it costs to take 4-6 people to a restaurant 3-5 times every week (not to mention the restaurants that are visited but ultimately not reviewed).

So, there is little question that many critics can, will, and have no choice but to base reviews on a single visit. We can complain about it, but not realistically.

Put the new restaurants to the side for now. And the critics - whether adequately capitalized or not.

I do not understand the concept of "range of potential" when it comes to "established" high end restaurants. Unless you're talking about the range between excellent and fabulous. The word "sucks" should never enter into the discussion.

When I read what you've written - I sense a bit of the conceit of people who live in New York. I live in a part of the US that's a lot "hickier" than New York - but I learned to eat in Europe - especially France. And I can assure you that no place in France gets 2 or 3 Michelin stars when it has "off nights" - except the once in a blue moon - like when the chef's wife gives birth or the chef dies!

I do not think there should be any difference between the way a critic and a knowledgeable consumer eats. If I spend big dollars at a supposedly big deal restaurant - I should get a wonderful meal. And if I don't get that - there is something wrong with the restaurant - not me. Just my two cents. Robyn

[Pan]

At other outlets, critics are expected to get most of their meals comped and to cover other expenses themselves.

My reaction is that that's despicable on both counts. Critics depending on getting their meal comped face conflict-of-interest problems in rewieving objectively, restaurants comping them to try to bribe the reviewers are engaging in corruption that ill serves the dining public, and publications not reimbursing heavy expenses that their employees are required to pay also really bothers me.

[Fat Guy]

As much as you don't like it, Pan, it's the way the industry works and it's not going to change -- it would be economically impossible for it to change. So the only way for 99% of food writers (those who aren't at the Times and Gourmet at one extreme or irrelevant hermits silently protesting at the other extreme) to deal with it is to try to carve out a space for themselves within certain limitations. I've written for the full range of media outlets -- from Web sites you've never even heard of to small regional newspapers to Saveur, Food & Wine, Elle, and even the New York Times -- and I've worked within the full range of reimbursement, non-reimbursement, and comp procedures. If you remain committed to writing what you believe, it makes very little difference (some, but not much) what the economic arrangment is, and if you have to write about a restaurant based on one visit it's certainly possible to do a good job and provide a useful service. Anyway, the narrower point is simply that some reviewers are limited to one meal and that's not going to change, so the only question is how should a reviewer behave within those limits. Personally, I think if you have only one meal at a place you should be somewhat conservative about generalizing.

[Pan]

Personally, I think if you have only one meal at a place you should be somewhat conservative about generalizing.

I wonder how many people would argue with that.

As a customer, I'll write off a restaurant if I my first experience with them is bad, or if bad things happen repeatedly after I've been a regular customer (such as the local Chinese restaurant that included nails in my Roast Chicken Noodle Soup twice and never got any more business from me). But as a reviewer, generalizing based on a single meal is very hazardous from a standpoint of fairness. One thing I'm thinking about is whether posting meal reports on eGullet makes me a reviewer, and I don't think it does, unless I'm thought of as an amateur reviewer, with all the differences that implies vis-a-vis professionals.

[mongo_jones]

such as the local Chinese restaurant that included nails in my Roast Chicken Noodle Soup twice

have to ask: metal or biological?