Critic sued by Restaurant

[Andy Lynes]

If food reviews are more entertainment than journalism in the UK, what do people actually use to find a restaurant besides word of mouth and sites like this? Michelin? Zagat? What?

Mainly this site , but I also use The Good Food Guide, Time Out and Hardens. The annual Michelin press release is very useful, but I dont use the guide itself for the UK. Press reviews can be useful for finding out names and addresses of new restaurants, except when you are the one telling certain critics about them in the first place of course.

[Marlyn4k]

So what was the end result of this rumpus...did Shepherd go through with it? Did he win? Are critics liable if they are factually inaccurate causing loss of income?

Edited October 1, 2004 by Marlyn4k (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

As a man who has earned his keep quite happily by being a professional restaurant and wine critic for more years than I will admit in public, these are issues I have faced on a regular basis.

One important thing to keep in mind - As it is impossible to claim that all restaurateurs are honest or that all chefs are talented, neither are all critics knowledgeable or particularly moral.

This does not mean that a malicious or unknowledgeable critic can get away with everything. Because criticism is a public act, the critics themselves are also subject to constant criticism. No one is more critical of critics than their readers, who do not hesitate to write letters to the editor when they disagree with what the critic has said. By the very nature of their work, editors are also critical for, as news must be accurate, criticism must be based on firm, well recognized standards.

And, as a chef may disagree with a critic's evaluation of his restaurant, so may the critics disagree with each other. The ultimate critic of both restaurant and those who write restaurant criticism,is the public, for these are the people who will eventually determine whether a restaurant thrives or eventually goes out of business. Critics have influence. They are not gods.

Anyone caring to read a few more of my opinions about this issue, you might want to see my little article "Who Criticizes the Critics" at http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/criticize_the_critics.html

[Timh]

While I find the reviews entertaining, I get the sence they are just a pack of divas, madonna wanna be's. That a restaurant can be skewered by a queen due to lack of attention is pathetic. If I were in the kitchen, I would emerge and stick a fork in their eye. I can't belive that reviewing restaurants is actually a profession anyway. That people need to be told that something tastes good is funny.

Edited October 2, 2004 by Timh (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

Tim, Hello....

With all due respect, any act done in public is subject to being criticized. That is as true for the plastic arts as it is for literature, music, wine, and/or restaurants.

It is not the critic's job to tell people what they should enjoy. It is, however the critics' job to analyze why this or that endeavor does or does not meet various standards. The criticd must, of course, base his/her opinions on given standards and a repertoire of experience and in that has to convince an audience (including the chefs in this case) that theyknow what they are talking about.

Criticism of any kind is a natural human endeavor. Some do make a profession of it. I would agree that too many critics have neither the background, the experience, the knowledge or the "feel" of the field they are involved with. That does not invalidate the critics' role...it only says that those are bad critics.

If you bother to read my own little article (referenced and with a hyperlink above) you will see that I feel strongly that no-one is more open to criticism than the critic. After all, criticism is also a public act and thus open to all of the commentaries of any other profession.