NYT correction re: Spice Market review

[bourdain]

Yeah. Very likely, I'd say.

[Fat Guy]

Phew. Because I'm never one to let good content get in the way of good self-promotion.

When this first happened I pulled up the Times ethics policy on Poynter. But it was so verbose I couldn't make it all the way through. I still haven't, but this morning I did a search on variants of the word "disclosure" and didn't find anything that seemed particularly on-point to Hesser's so-called disclosure failure.

Let's start with the allegation, from the Times:

Last May, before her assignment to that post, Ms. Hesser published a book, "Cooking for Mr. Latte," that was praised in a jacket blurb by the restaurateur Jean-Georges Vongerichten, who later opened Spice Market. He wrote: "Amanda Hesser's charming personality shines as the reader experiences the life and loves of a New York City gourmet. `Cooking for Mr. Latte' is perfectly seasoned with sensuality and superb recipes." The review should have disclosed that background.

Now, there's something interesting here that only became apparent after reading this in light of what I've seen in the Times code of ethics (more on that in a minute): it says "The review should have disclosed that background." This introduces some ambiguity, because what it doesn't say is "Amanda Hesser should have disclosed that background."

If you look at a piece of Times ethics policy that covers a somewhat similar situation -- disclosure of romantic ties -- there's an emphasis not on disclosure in the published article but, rather, to the writer's editor:

Clearly, romantic involvement with a news source would foster

an appearance of partiality. Therefore staff members who develop

close relationships with people who might figure in coverage they

provide, edit, package or supervise must disclose those relationships

to the associate managing editor for news administration or the

deputy editorial page editor. In some cases, no further action

may be needed. But in other instances staff members may have

to recuse themselves from certain coverage. And in still other

cases, assignments may have to be modified or beats changed.

In a few instances, a staff member may have to move to a

different department — from business and financial news, say,

to the culture desk — to avoid the appearance of conflict.

Assuming a parallel between Hesser's relationship with Vongerichten and a romantic relationship with the subject of an article, Hesser's duty would have been to tell her editor, not to disclose the relationship in the review. Which means, really, if she had failed to tell an editor, the editor's note should have read "Ms. Hesser should have disclosed that background to the associate managing editor for news administration or the deputy editorial page editor." Instead, it says "The review should have disclosed that background," which certainly leaves open the possibility that Hesser did disclose the relationship, or that it was common knowledge at the Times, but there was an editorial judgment made not to do anything about it.

I'm also interested in the "In some cases, no further action may be needed" part. This indicates to me that the Times recognizes the possibility of, for example, a reporter writing about her boyfriend without the need for any recusal or disclosure in print.

The other bit I found in the Times ethics policy that cover disclosure are:

The Times recognizes that members of its talented staff write

books, operas and plays; create sculpture, and give recitals. It

further recognizes that such projects require commercial

arrangements to come to fruition. A writer requires a publisher,

a playwright a production company.

Nevertheless those commercial ties can be a breeding ground for

favoritism, actual or perceived. Staff members who enter into such

arrangements must disclose them to their supervisors, who may

require them to withdraw from coverage of the parties involved.

Staff members who have a publisher or a movie contract, for

example, must be exceedingly sensitive to any appearance of bias in

covering other publishers or studios. Those with any doubts about

a proposed arrangement should consult the associate managing

editor for news administration or the deputy editorial page editor.

This would seem only to apply to coverage of publishers, as opposed to coverage of someone who gave you a book blurb. So on the whole I was unable to find any clear statement of policy that, on its own terms or by simple extension, applies to a book-blurb situation. It's not a romantic relationship. Vongerichten isn't the publisher or in any sort of business relationship with Hesser or the publisher (I don't see how writing a book blurb is a business relationship). And I can't find anything in Times policy that applies to simple friendships or published praise.

I mention all this because, if Hesser violated some clear policy at the Times, an editor's note would of course be required regardless of the wisdom of the policy. Likewise, if Hesser told the appropriate editor and that editor made the wrong judgment call, and a clear policy existed, an editor's note would be required.

And then of course there's the question, why hasn't anything been done to Hesser or the Spice Market review? Why wasn't she suspended or fired, and why wasn't the review revoked? Surely, an ethics violation at the Times is a capital offense these days. The lack of any follow-up to the editor's note in terms of discipline or retraction lends some support to the theory that the blame doesn't lie with Hesser.

Assuming there is no Times policy on point here (and for all I know there is and I just couldn't find it, but assuming there isn't one . . .) then an editor's note strikes me as gratuitous. And while I'm sure the Times hates running editor's notes, I think the Jayson Blair episode has made the editors there so insecure about ethics issues that it's entirely possible they'd overcompensate and unnecessarily tear their garments and take up a mighty wail over nothing.

As for general ethics, I just don't see a problem here. As I mentioned before, it's just a stupid book blurb and we're talking about a long-time food-beat reporter who surely has some sort of identifiable relationship with every major chef in the city. Don't put someone like that in a reviewing position and then act surprised when those relationships come to light.

[Jinmyo]

La Hesser gives Compass * in her most recent review: here.

I notice no mention of either Kunz or Vongerichten.

And that Chef Katy Sparks must not have blurbed.

[Jinmyo]

NY Observer on the Hesser Affair etc.

[mjr_inthegardens]

Village Voice "Press Clips" by Cynthia Cotts on the "Hesser Affair"

'Amanda Hesser's spice market review sparks debate over foodie ethics and tableside manners'

includes a link to a thread on egullet "anonymous snark[ing] critic"

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0414/cotts.php

-mjr

[Fat Guy]

The thing is, although ethical conduct is a prerequisite for good journalism, what the Times dining section needs to worry about right now has nothing to do with ethics: it needs to worry about the fact that it has a reviewer in place who is creating a mess that will take years to clean up, and who is contributing (not that she's the only contributor) to the overall decline in quality (not to mention influence and relevance) of the section. I'd rather have a quality section than one that's been inoculated against relationships between its writers and the world of chefs.

Hesser is a Vongerichten fan. That's a known quantity. So what should be done about it?

The shallow view sees this as a question of ethics/disclosure: it says Hesser should either have recused herself from writing the review or disclosed the backstory between her and Vongerichten.

The more refined view, I think -- the one that takes account of the realities of criticism in any field where the most knowledgeable people all run in the same circles -- is the one that focuses on the actual work-product of the writer: it's not only okay for Hesser to write a review of a Vongerichten restaurant, it's actually desirable if she takes advantage of her in-depth knowledge and long-time relationships in order to give us a better-informed review. Of course it requires some professionalism: it doesn't matter how much you like the guy, your first duty is to excellence in cuisine and in your writing, not to him. So if a dish sucks, you have to say so, and if that means you lose a friend too bad.

The problem arises not when Hesser has a relationship with Vongerichten, and not when Hesser or the Times fails to disclose some picayune details of that relationship, and not when Hesser writes a review of Vongerichten's restaurant. Rather, the problem arises when Hesser loses her perspective. In reading her review, she appears to be fundamentally incapable -- less so than even the average Zagat survey participant -- of seeing Vongerichten's restaurant through anything less than rose-colored glasses. Three stars for Spice Market is just an outrageously stupid rating. It is completely and utterly unjustifiable by common sense or the precedents of the long-established New York Times star system. Moreover, she displayed incredibly poor judgment by acting in the service of Vongerichten's vindictive PR machinery, when someone -- presumably Vongerichten -- got pissed that Gray Kunz was getting too much press.

I'm sorry, but the Vongerichten-Kunz collaboration is the most interesting part (only interesting part?) of the Spice Market story. Leaving it out can only be explained as service to the Vongerichten agenda. Certainly, the explanation the "Times spokesperson" gave to the Village Voice represents at best a lack of familiarity with restaurant reviewing and at worst deep disingenuousness: ""As they have limited space, reviewers often hang the success (or failure) of the restaurant on the restaurateur who has risked his or her money to open the doors. In the case of Spice Market, that was Mr. Vongerichten." Please don't make me haul out all the New York Times restaurant reviews where, for example at a Ducasse restaurant, the chef de cuisine (Didier Elena in two ADNY reviews, and Doug Psaltis in the Mix review) gets a ton of ink. Here we're talking about one of the greatest chefs of our time, and he gets ignored on account of space constraints? Make some more fucking space, then. Gray Kunz. Eight letters and a space. Just put it in there. I can help out with the typesetting if it's too confusing.

[mongo_jones]

The problem arises not when Hesser has a relationship with Vongerichten, and not when Hesser or the Times fails to disclose some picayune details of that relationship, and not when Hesser writes a review of Vongerichten's restaurant. Rather, the problem arises when Hesser loses her perspective. In reading her review, she appears to be fundamentally incapable -- less so than even the average Zagat survey participant -- of seeing Vongerichten's restaurant through anything less than rose-colored glasses. Three stars for Spice Market is just an outrageously stupid rating. It is completely and utterly unjustifiable by common sense or the precedents of the long-established New York Times star system.

fat guy,

all well and good but how are we to tell when this has happened? how do you know, for instance, without recourse to the dubious magic of "common sense" that she doesn't actually think spice market is as good as she says it is? what makes us suspect these things is other things we happen to know about that relationship.

it is precisely because it is impossible for all readers to tell these things, and because this is already such a subjective arena, that readers need to be armed with as many filtering mechanisms as a writer or editor can give them. in the overall scheme of things this hesser issue may be minor--as you say there are more egregious omissions to worry about. but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant or excusable.

mongo

[Fat Guy]

how do you know, for instance, without recourse to the dubious magic of "common sense" that she doesn't actually think spice market is as good as she says it is?

It's something called "judgment" that we have to rely upon, and it's supposed to come from editors. Still, to make a minor alteration to your comment, I think she most likely does think Spice Market is as good as she says it is. Which is one of a few reasons why she's not fit to be a restaurant reviewer.

it is precisely because it is impossible for all readers to tell these things, and because this is already such a subjective arena, that readers need to be armed with as many filtering mechanisms as a writer or editor can give them.

I see that as exactly why you shouldn't bury your readers in a pile of red herrings. Knowledge is only an effective "filtering mechanism" if it's relevant and contextual. A reader who doesn't have a frame of reference for judging the substance of a review, and who doesn't understand the realities of the world of culinary journalism, is going to be disproportionately influenced by the disclosure of a relationship between a critic and the subject of criticism. Yet such relationships are business-as-usual in many areas of criticism. The important thing is to hire critics who are professional enough to put their duties as critics ahead of their personal relationships with chefs.

[mongo_jones]

how do you know, for instance, without recourse to the dubious magic of "common sense" that she doesn't actually think spice market is as good as she says it is?

It's something called "judgment" that we have to rely upon, and it's supposed to come from editors. Still, to make a minor alteration to your comment, I think she most likely does think Spice Market is as good as she says it is. Which is one of a few reasons why she's not fit to be a restaurant reviewer.

it is precisely because it is impossible for all readers to tell these things, and because this is already such a subjective arena, that readers need to be armed with as many filtering mechanisms as a writer or editor can give them.

I see that as exactly why you shouldn't bury your readers in a pile of red herrings. Knowledge is only an effective "filtering mechanism" if it's relevant and contextual. A reader who doesn't have a frame of reference for judging the substance of a review, and who doesn't understand the realities of the world of culinary journalism, is going to be disproportionately influenced by the disclosure of a relationship between a critic and the subject of criticism. Yet such relationships are business-as-usual in many areas of criticism. The important thing is to hire critics who are professional enough to put their duties as critics ahead of their personal relationships with chefs.

fat guy,

i think we are in some danger of going round in circles: all reviews are subjective, the reviewers whose reviews we agree with are the ones who should be reviewers etc.

and i don't think that knowing that a reviewer has a prior relationship (personal, economic) with a restareuteur is a red herring. i mean it is if you're not basing whether you go to a restaurant or not entirely on a review, but if you are it isn't. that is to say, food writers may relate to this differently than non-food writers. i'm guessing your position on this is based on the fact that you know a lot of food industry people and don't feel that should per se compromise your food writing credentials. russ parsons might disagree, and i think i am more in agreement with his take on these things as expressed in an earlier thread--don't really know what his take on hesser is.

mongo

[badthings]

OUCH!!

Mea culpa.  And boy, was I wrong.

My point wasn't that you were stupid for backing the wrong pony -- it made sense to me, and no one else questioned you at the time. Rather that even someone who seems a good fit can have a hard time with such a difficult job.

As the Observer pointed out a lot of people are suddenly nostalgic for Grimes. (And after reading about his adventures with shopping, I am too).

[Lesley C]

and the apparent absence of any kind of a sense of humor

God, Bourdain, yes! Doesn't anyone in that section have a sense of humour? The New Yorkers make Nigella sound like Rodney Dangerfield.

Couldn't they just throw a load of money at A.A.Gill and get him over there fast? At this rate I'd be happy with Dave Barry.

[alanamoana]

I'm beginning to agree with the "get somebody from out of town" contingent. As long as it's not the San Francisco guy.

definitely agree with bourdain on this one. although i used to live/work in san francisco and michael bauer seems to be mellowing out which just shows how subjective the reviews are. if i can look at them from a geographical and emotional distance and feel that he's fair and reasonably balanced, what the hell happened with all of my anger and hatred toward him when i was in sf?!

i think the argument that mongo_jones is making relates particularly to the "average reader", that is someone who isn't directly related to the restaurant industry who knows all the gossip, names, etc. (someone not involved in eGullet ). the "average reader", namely friends of mine who aren't in the business and who go out to enjoy a meal on the town, can't make the judgement calls that we in the business can. not because they're stupid, but because it just isn't as close to them as it is to us.

i've always questioned the logic as to why there has to be ONE reviewer for the restaurant reviews. is this a matter of budget? if they can have multiple critics for movies, books and such, why is it such a big deal with the restaurant critic? it would even, in my opinion, make for keeping the identity/ies secret even easier. as the observer pointed out, having these mulitple personalities critiquing (sp?) the movies, etc. makes it easier for the reader to adjust their assessment of the review based on the person who wrote the review. i think it just makes sense. it seems to me that the star system would be more balanced as well. if you have two or even three people reviewing restaurants, it would be unlikely you'd have huge discrepancies between restaurants.

an idea i had years ago would be to have a "siskel and ebert" approach to the restaurant review or even a "he said, she said" review format. two people go eat at least twice, but separately and they compare and contrast their experiences at each restaurant. you could have a one thumb up and one thumb down, but they'd have to qualify their opinions in their review.

[Fat Guy]

i think we are in some danger of going round in circles: all reviews are subjective, the reviewers whose reviews we agree with are the ones who should be reviewers etc.

Nobody agrees with the three-star assessment of Spice Market. Not one single person has stepped up on eGullet and tried to defend it, nobody I've spoken to in the industry thinks it makes any sense (I wonder if Vongerichten himself thinks it's a three-star restaurant), and that's a very rare circumstance here -- usually at least one person here will agree with the minority position (often that person is me). No, this goes beyond the margin of error and beyond the realm of principled disagreement. I disagree with plenty of reviews without it causing me to fundamentally question a reviewer.

i'm guessing your position on this is based on the fact that you know a lot of food industry people and don't feel that should per se compromise your food writing credentials.

The fact that I know a lot of food industry people is one of my food writing credentials. Do you want to read work by sports columnists who don't know any athletes or coaches? I think, however, that most people would make a distinction between "food writing" and "restaurant reviewing." I don't know anybody who takes the position that food writers shouldn't be connected to the industry. That perverse fate is reserved for the restaurant reviewers, who are somehow expected to be total outsiders yet expert and capable of writing something meaningful and interesting. Fat chance. The notion of restaurant reviewer as outsider is completely absurd and is a virtual guarantee of mediocre reviews -- and I say that because it's what I think, not because I'm trying to get a job. I have no intention of ever being a restaurant reviewer again. I haven't covered that beat in years -- since before eGullet existed.

I consider her level of access and her extensive connections to be one of Amanda Hesser's credentials as well -- and she surely knows a lot more people than I do. My concern with her reviews is simply that she hasn't used this knowledge and access to make her reviews more informative. I like and respect her writing and her intellect. From the very limited contact I've had with her, I like her as a person. But she sucks as a restaurant reviewer.

"Badthings" mentioned nostalgia for Grimes. I feel no such nostalgia. His cranky and un-insightful reviews were a many-years-long example of how someone can be an excellent writer and smart as hell yet be a mediocre restaurant reviewer on account of lack of knowledge, enthusiasm, and involvement.

[Fat Guy]

alanamoana, there are two restaurant reviewers at the Times. They split the territory roughly by price. That seems to be the tradition as it has arisen in restaurant reviewing at the major papers. Film reviews seem to be assigned more randomly, though maybe there's a system I'm not aware of. In any event you never see two Times reviewers reviewing the same movie, and they don't have a star system for movies -- it's different in several ways. I also think, with restaurants in a local market, many of which are competing for slots in a hierarchical star system, it makes sense to have a consistent voice. But even if having two or three fine-dining reviewers made sense conceptually, I think as a matter of resources it would never happen. It costs a hundred or maybe two hundred thousand bucks a year for the Times to send a restaurant reviewer out to eat often enough to write one review and one diner's journal a week. There just isn't the demand for six or seven restaurant reviews a week (movies are national, restaurants are local; everybody goes to the movies, only a small percentage of people go to nice restaurants), nor are there enough interesting restaurants to review.

[mongo_jones]

The fact that I know a lot of food industry people is one of my food writing credentials. Do you want to read work by sports columnists who don't know any athletes or coaches?

well, actually yes. see espn.com for what happens when sports journalists get to know athletes and coaches too well.

your knowing the food industry may well be one of your credentials, but your being friendly with particular food industry figures will certainly make your writing on them suspect to me if i know of it. there is a difference between knowing something or someone and having a personal relationship outside of the bounds of research with it.

[SobaAddict70]

your knowing the food industry may well be one of your credentials, but your being friendly with particular food industry figures will certainly make your writing on them suspect to me if i know of it. there is a difference between knowing something or someone and having a personal relationship outside of the bounds of research with it.

Hold on for a second here.

There is such a thing as ethics which is almost de rigueur among writers and journalists. It's regularly practiced by 99% of all journalists, writers and reporters, the 1% who don't being people such as Jayson Blair and his ilk.

Why would you view FG's connections as a weakness? I view it as a strength, in fact it's BECAUSE of El Gordo's connections that his writing is that much more informed. There are layers of nuances in his material that would be sorely lacking if someone with half or even a fraction of his experience were to submit the same material.

Everyone in the industry worth reading knows pretty much everyone else. It's almost incestuous really. Are you suggesting that all of THEIR writing is automatically suspect?

Soba

[alanamoana]

based on your argument, fat guy, is it really necessary to have a weekly review? how about cutting back to twice a month? this would be justified with your argument that "only a small percentage of people go to nice restaurants", thus with fewer people dining out (vs. seeing movies) + not very many interesting restaurants out there (locally) + fewer reviews = less money spent on critic/s' dining out. you could alternate the under $25 review and the regular restaurant review each week.

the restaurant critics could share responsibility for reviews. that's why i think a system where you have two people independently eating at the restaurant and then co-operatively reviewing the restaurant might be the most balanced. you get to see two people make their arguments and justifications at the same time. it also takes away some of the "power" that people close to the industry feel the critics have, particularly when they've held the position for a long period of time. i'm just thinking that a system of checks and balances (i know, i know, that's what editors are for) might make for even more interesting and balanced reviews which still express the subjectivity of the subject matter.

consistency is a good thing...but being consistently bad and off kilter isn't exactly desirable, is it?

Edited April 7, 2004 by alanamoana (log)

[mongo_jones]

your knowing the food industry may well be one of your credentials, but your being friendly with particular food industry figures will certainly make your writing on them suspect to me if i know of it. there is a difference between knowing something or someone and having a personal relationship outside of the bounds of research with it.

Hold on for a second here.

There is such a thing as ethics which is almost de rigueur among writers and journalists. It's regularly practiced by 99% of all journalists, writers and reporters, the 1% who don't being people such as Jayson Blair and his ilk.

Why would you view FG's connections as a weakness? I view it as a strength, in fact it's BECAUSE of El Gordo's connections that his writing is that much more informed. There are layers of nuances in his material that would be sorely lacking if someone with half or even a fraction of his experience were to submit the same material.

Everyone in the industry worth reading knows pretty much everyone else. It's almost incestuous really. Are you suggesting that all of THEIR writing is automatically suspect?

Soba

i am talking about reviewers and reviews--should have been more specific. i am not interested in a positive review of a restaurant by someone who is a friend of the owner/chef or a negative review by someone who likewise dislikes them.

a more general food-writer on the other hand (especially one writing about the food industry) is well-served by knowing enough about how that industry works.

[SobaAddict70]

your knowing the food industry may well be one of your credentials, but your being friendly with particular food industry figures will certainly make your writing on them suspect to me if i know of it. there is a difference between knowing something or someone and having a personal relationship outside of the bounds of research with it.

Hold on for a second here.

There is such a thing as ethics which is almost de rigueur among writers and journalists. It's regularly practiced by 99% of all journalists, writers and reporters, the 1% who don't being people such as Jayson Blair and his ilk.

Why would you view FG's connections as a weakness? I view it as a strength, in fact it's BECAUSE of El Gordo's connections that his writing is that much more informed. There are layers of nuances in his material that would be sorely lacking if someone with half or even a fraction of his experience were to submit the same material.

Everyone in the industry worth reading knows pretty much everyone else. It's almost incestuous really. Are you suggesting that all of THEIR writing is automatically suspect?

Soba

i am talking about reviewers and reviews--should have been more specific. i am not interested in a positive review of a restaurant by someone who is a friend of the owner/chef or a negative review by someone who likewise dislikes them.

a more general food-writer on the other hand (especially one writing about the food industry) is well-served by knowing enough about how that industry works.

I was thinking of restaurant reviewers actually --for example, Marian Burros' review of Casa Mono (where she discloses her relationship with the restaurant's principals).

Based on your statement, her review is automatically suspect even though there was full disclosure in her review.

Right?

Soba

[Fat Guy]

I certainly agree that there's a continuum from acquaintance to friend to dear-friend to business associate to lover and beyond. And while theoretically a reviewer should have the requisite level of professionalism to write an independent and fair review of anybody's work, it's reasonable for a newspaper to draw the line somewhere. And it may be reasonable, at a publication that distinguishes between the reviewing role and the food writing role (a distinction I think is probably not a particularly good idea, but which is standard), to draw that line in different places especially on a going-forward basis. But in drawing that line, one has to take account of the normal course of business in an industry. Food writers and chefs travel in the same circles. That's just the way it is. Acquaintanceships and casual friendships are the order of the day.

But more importantly, with respect to Hesser who is the subject of this thread, it should have been totally obvious before her appointment as interim reviewer that she has many acquaintances and friends in the business. Look at all the articles she has written over the years. She has been up close and personal with most of the big names. Again, what the hell were they expecting when they gave her that job?

And it's not as though Hesser and Vongerichten are dear friends. She seems to be more of an admirer than anything. The relationship they have seems to be centered mostly around this book blurb, and the book blurb is such a minor thing I just can't imagine why the Times got so persnickety about it.

[mongo_jones]

you know as i think about this more, and as the pomposity of a certain strand of food elitism (represented heavily in certain parts of egullet) wears on me more, i'm not entirely sure that we aren't better served by food-writers who approach the objects of their writing (as opposed to the writing itself) in the spirit of amateurishness. do i as a reader really need you to know the last detail of what is going on in the kitchen or which chef at restaurant a. sleeps with which sous-chef at restaurant b., or what their views on global food culture are, in order to know whether you think i'll like the food at a particular restaurant? in a restaurant review all the stuff that "access" signifies is fluff. save that for feature writing.

[mongo_jones]

I was thinking of restaurant reviewers actually --for example, Marian Burros' review of Casa Mono (where she discloses her relationship with the restaurant's principals).

Based on your statement, her review is automatically suspect even though there was full disclosure in her review.

Right?

Soba

see, now you're missing the nuance of my posts. yes, it is suspect but mitigated by the disclosure. someone else who doesn't give me that disclosure becomes exponentially more suspect when i discover the connection elsewhere.

[SobaAddict70]

Ah, I see.

Well then, if only Eric Asimov were the interim critic.

Fwiw, I thought there was a markedly different tone in this week's review of Compass compared to Spice Market's. (As in the sound of a hand being slapped. ) I could be wrong though -- it wouldn't be the first time.

Soba

[Fat Guy]

you know as i think about this more, and as the pomposity of a certain strand of food elitism (represented heavily in certain parts of egullet) wears on me more, i'm not entirely sure that we aren't better served by food-writers who approach the objects of their writing (as opposed to the writing itself) in the spirit of amateurishness. do i as a reader really need you to know the last detail of what is going on in the kitchen or which chef at restaurant a. sleeps with which sous-chef at restaurant b., or what their views on global food culture are, in order to know whether you think i'll like the food at a particular restaurant? in a restaurant review all the stuff that "access" signifies is fluff. save that for feature writing.

I sympathize with some of that view, but definitely not all of it. I too prefer gossip-free reviews, and I think a balance between the spirit of the amateur and the rigor of the professional defines a good restaurant reviewer. But access isn't only, or even primarily, about gossip. Restaurant reviews aren't simple consumerist documents like Zagat. They're also about information, and in many cases access leads to a better class of information. Sure, you can find out basic data about ingredients and cooking techniques on the phone, but really understanding a place often takes more than that. I'd be happy to spin this out on another thread, but I think we're now off topic for this particular discussion.

[alanamoana]

Ah, I see.

Well then, if only Eric Asimov were the interim critic.

Fwiw, I thought there was a markedly different tone in this week's review of Compass compared to Spice Market's. (As in the sound of a hand being slapped. ) I could be wrong though -- it wouldn't be the first time.

Soba

sobaAddict70, you're right. my s.o. and i read the review and he (who isn't in the restaurant business) noticed the difference as well.