new NY Times restaurant critic

[Fat Guy]

Google image search for Frank Bruni: Click.

Must be the first one.

He has been on TV, he has written a book, and there has never been any effort made to conceal his image. Any restaurateur with 5 minutes to spare can find images of him online.

As with all the Times critics, most restaurateurs in town will know what he looks like and by the time he has been around for a few months he will be recognized more often than not when he goes to a restaurant. Sometimes he'll know he was recognized, and sometimes he won't. Ultimately it won't make a huge difference over the course of multiple visits and with a practiced eye. Yet the Times will continue the anonymity charade, pixellating the critic's image in TV appearances and having him wear funny hats at the 92nd Street Y. In addition to being disingenuous, this practice will simply continue to play into the myth of restaurateurs as corrupt: they're out to serve crap to us common folk, and they only serve good meals to critics and rich celebrities. Yet, while the Times feels anonymity is important enough to require hats, wigs, pixellation, and fake credit cards (something that would probably be considered unethical in standard news reporting), you will never rarely see acknowledgment in the individual reviews of the fact that the critic has been recognized.

The Times should take this opportunity to rid itself of its failed and nonsensical anonymity policy.

[Fat Guy]

Another interesting question: given that the new reviewer presumably has an outlook that is not so married to the French restaurant model and might be more sympathetic to the Italian model, might we start seeing a break in France's stranglehold on the top rankings?

I doubt it will have anything to do with the critic's perspective. It's not as though William Grimes and Ruth Reichl were such Francophiles. They gave plenty of three-star ratings to non-French restaurants. The reality at the four-star level is that there aren't any contenders that aren't at the French or heavily-French-influenced end of the culinary spectrum. If someone opens a four-star-caliber Italian restaurant in New York, and it doesn't go out of business in three days, I'm sure a Times critic would love to give it four stars.

There was really only one non-French contender, at its time, for a four-star rating: Gramercy Tavern. Of course by today's standards, when you look at places like Per Se, Gramercy is very clearly a three-star restaurant. But when it opened it was possible to make a four-star argument. Still, I think Danny Meyer and Tom Colicchio chose not to pursue the four-star agenda to its logical conclusion. They wanted something more casual, they didn't want to shell out for silver instead of stainless, they wanted to do more covers than a four-star environment can easily allow (the Daniel example notwithstanding), and they chose to keep the menu somewhat conservative and mainstream.

[Jinmyo]

The Times should take this opportunity to rid itself of its failed and nonsensical anonymity policy.

But without that nonsensical background the reviews wouldn't be as funny.

[oakapple]

The Times should take this opportunity to rid itself of its failed and nonsensical anonymity policy.

That's a bit harsh. Ruch Reichl's famed Le Cirque double-review shows that, at least sometimes, the paper's critic is not recognized, even in a high-end restaurant where they presumably would be on-the-lookout.

Also, by making their reservations in somebody else's name, the critics at least ensure that the restaurants aren't prepared for their visit. The restaurant must take the chance that the critic will show up on the chef de cuisine's night off. That could never happen if the critic always reserved in his own name.

William Grimes has conceded that even the dullest-witted restauranteur would probably guess he's a reviewer when he shows up half-a-dozen times and rings up large tabs over a period of several weeks. But at least for the first visit, he can catch them by surprise.

The pixellated image on TV appearances is important, because without that even non-foodies would be approaching him all over town --- "Hey, aren't you that guy I see on TV?" Yes, the determined web surfer can find photos of Mr. Bruni. If his mug were on TV regularly, there'd be no chance at all of him ever avoiding recognition.

That said, Ruth Reichl had an advantage, in that she could wear a range of wigs and even pretend to be 8 months pregnant. It would be a lot harder for a male critic to plausibly disguise himself. But I still think he should take all reasonable steps to avoid calling attention to his visits.

[Fat Guy]

Ruch Reichl's famed Le Cirque double-review shows that, at least sometimes, the paper's critic is not recognized, even in a high-end restaurant where they presumably would be on-the-lookout.

And the follow-up review is an overwhelming demonstration of the failure of anonymity. As you will recall, she claims to have disguised herself as a complete bumpkin, yet she got great service. Le Cirque goes back to four stars. Yet it is well known in the industry that she was recognized the second she walked up the stairs and that Sirio out-maneuvered her.

But more importantly, Le Cirque is a totally atypical restaurant. It is one of the few remaining totally retrograde hierarchical restaurants in New York. Were all restaurants like Le Cirque, where the restaurant is more about social status and FOSness than it is about food, that would be one thing. But that's simply not an accurate representation of the New York restaurant scene, which is full of conscientious restaurateurs acting in good faith and trying to do their best for every customer. They should not be treated as criminals -- and usually in news reporting the undercover gambit is reserved only for extreme cases of criminality, immorality, or environmental destruction -- just because a small minority of restaurateurs really are as bad as everybody imagines.

Also, by making their reservations in somebody else's name, the critics at least ensure that the restaurants aren't prepared for their visit. The restaurant must take the chance that the critic will show up on the chef de cuisine's night off. That could never happen if the critic always reserved in his own name.

And why should a random occurrence, such as a 1-in-7 chance of a critic showing up on the chef's night off, determine how many stars a restaurant is going to carry for the next decade? Of course, a good chef will ensure that the restaurant runs as well when he's out of the kitchen as when he's in -- after the restaurant has been open for awhile (of course most restaurants are reviewed when new). But unless every restaurant is going to be visited at least once on the chef's night off, how is it particularly fair to nail the few who got unlucky? I believe restaurants should be given an opportunity to serve the Times reviewer under favorable circumstances. It all comes down to the mission of the review. Some see it as a fancy version of Zagat: an exercise in consumerism. I see it as a higher level of criticism: my primary interest is in knowing what a restaurant will be like at its best. I can read the write-ins on CitySearch to find out if the average Joe isn't getting good treatment. The Times reviewer will never be anonymous enough and will never visit a restaurant enough times to develop a statistically meaningful appraisal of a restaurant's underperformance potential.

William Grimes has conceded that even the dullest-witted restauranteur would probably guess he's a reviewer when he shows up half-a-dozen times and rings up large tabs over a period of several weeks. But at least for the first visit, he can catch them by surprise.

I don't see it as a war where a sneak attack is necessary.

The pixellated image on TV appearances is important, because without that even non-foodies would be approaching him all over town --- "Hey, aren't you that guy I see on TV?"

By that logic, everybody on TV should be pixellated.

Edited April 9, 2004 by Fat Guy (log)

[oakapple]

Which begs the question, how many Amanda reviews could there be left in the hopper?

The story in today's paper said that the appointment is effective June 1st, and his first review will appear on June 9th. That means we have eight more reviews by Amanda Hesser (or, at least, eight more that aren't by him).

[JohnnyH]

Google image search for Frank Bruni: Click.

Must be the first one.

He has been on TV, he has written a book, and there has never been any effort made to conceal his image. Any restaurateur with 5 minutes to spare can find images of him online.

Here he is: Bruni

[Mebutter]

The Times should take this opportunity to rid itself of its failed and nonsensical anonymity policy.

The anomymity policy may have "failed" - found Bruni's pix with three computer keystrokes - but it is not nonsensical.

We've gone around on this again and again in various threads - and not even the journalists doing the reviewing agree - but I still maintain that anonymity lets a reviewer experience the food and ambience the general public generally gets. And, even if one is discovered - a process I found difficult to detect in Connecticut but easy-as-pie in California - at least the pretense of anonymity may restrain one's hosts from becoming too hospitable.

If one wants to walk around eating out as a known entity, OK, but spell it out right at the top: This is My Reviewer's Dinner. That way the general public will know not to expect similar treatment.

Reviewing would become pure entertainment then, rather than being considered consumer reporting of a sort. I have to wonder how many newspapers would continue to pay out the considerable expense of dinners, salaries, mileage, etc. for something considered to have little news or consumer value.

[Fat Guy]

New York Times restaurant reviews are already "My Reviewer's Dinner" half the time, or more. It's just that under the cloak-and-dagger system everybody feels compelled to be dishonest about it: you get into this bizarre double-secret cycle of wigs and fake credit cards and restaurateurs pretending not to recognize critics even though they do and the critics sweeping it under the rug in their reviews even though they know they've been recognized. And the end result is that something like half the reviews are still "My Reviewer's Dinner" while the other half are divided between "Average Joe's random experience gets used to rate a restaurant for a decade" and "Reviewer got fooled, thought he was anonymous but wasn't."

I've got news for you, Bill: Zagat has already marginalized newspaper and magazine restaurant reviews to the point where, under the current system, it's only a matter of time before they start replacing them with excerpts from Zagat. And that will be the fault of the critics and editors who engaged in the long campaign of self-marginalization represented by the shallow consumerist view, as opposed to treating restaurant reviewing as a form of arts criticism. I also think you're making a big jump from non-anonymity to "pure entertainment" and "little news or consumer value." There is tremendous consumer value in an insider's look at a restaurant, one that really explains the cuisine and how to get the most out of the place. And it extends beyond entertainment, to actual education. Whereas, on the more lowbrow consumer-protection front, Zagat does a much better job than a newspaper critic can. As for news value, every other writer in a food section is known to the chefs and restaurateurs being written about and it doesn't seem to detract from news value. In fact, the non-review pieces in newspaper food sections tend to have a higher news value than the reviews, which are news only in the sense that they are usually reviews of new restaurants -- something that wouldn't change under a non-anonymous system.

David Rosengarten wrote reviews for Gourmet for years and was -- as a major Food TV personality -- always recognized. Yet his reviews were some of the best restaurant reviews ever written: witty, informed, and unfailingly precise. Ultimately, all this speculation about the theoretical problems with non-anonymity collapses under the weight of the actual evidence: we have seen non-anonymous restaurant reviews, and they have been excellent.

[Mebutter]

Zagat has its uses but I don't think you can develop a "relationship" with a guide like that as you can with a reviewer - whether you agree or disagree with the reviewer.

And, yes, there have been some excellent non-anonymous restaurant reviews. There have also been excellent reviews by reviewers who chose anonymity.

What it comes down to is the quality of the reviewer - and there are no carbon copies in that line work.

I agree the anonymity system can tend toward cloak and dagger but I don't think it dishonest nor do I see it as some cabal or conspiracy that ends up snookering the reader. (I always told readers when I was recognized) Some distance is good i think between reviewed and reviewer and if it takes anonymity - or the artifice of "anonymity" to do it - OK.

[Fat Guy]

For someone who has already been on television and whose photos can be found with two clicks on Google, the train has already left the station. Bruni should learn to be a good non-anonymous reviewer rather than try to live the lie.

[oakapple]

Zagat has already marginalized newspaper and magazine restaurant reviews to the point where, under the current system, it's only a matter of time before they start replacing them with excerpts from Zagat.

All of the city's major papers and weeklies still have restaurant critics, so I don't think the species is facing extinction anytime soon. Zagat's survey comes out only once a year, so it can't report on restaurants when they're still new, as the newspapers can.

The greater danger, I think, is that newspapers reduce the budgets they allocate to restaurant reviewing. The Times's fine dining critic costs them at least $200k in salary and expenses, probably more. Looked at from purely a cost-benefit point of view, they have to sell a lot of newspapers to make that sum back. In the next downturn, perhaps the Times will cut the size of the expense account, forcing the reviewer to make fewer and/or less-costly visits per review. It's a way the paper can subtly cut quality, while still appearing (to most readers) to cover restaurants just as assiduously as before.

[Bux]

Chanterelle has been nominated for the Beard Outstanding Restaurant award for several years running, and that's a nationwide honor, so perhaps it has picked up its game since Grimes demoted it four years ago. Although Chanterelle did not win in any of the last three years, the nominations are an honor in themselves, and only Chanterelle keeps consistently getting them.

My understanding is that a nominee may be renominated year after year, but that a winner may not be nominated for a certain period of time. Thus it's less significant that Chanterelle is the only one to be constantly nominated. It certainly doesn't mean it's more highly regarded than those who are not nominated but have won the award. The nomination, as for any award, is an honor however.

[Fat Guy]

All of the city's major papers and weeklies still have restaurant critics, so I don't think the species is facing extinction anytime soon.

When Bryan Miller was the New York Times restaurant reviewer, he had the power to close a restaurant. Simple as that. Today, almost every restaurant can easily withstand a bad review from the Times, and most restaurateurs will tell you that Zagat ratings are more important to them than Times reviews. They will also tell you that all the other newspaper and magazine reviews combined have hardly any impact whatsoever on their business. So I really think the "they're still around" standard is not the one by which we should be judging the success of newspaper and magazine restaurant reviews. I think it's far more telling that in the couple of decades they have been eclipsed by a new product.

So now the mission is to distinguish themselves from that product. Restaurant reviews need a unique selling proposition. And there's one area in which it's impossible to make a dent in Zagat's armor: Zagat is the voice of a gazillion average Joe restaurantgoers; it controls the populist-consumerist end of the market. Real restaurant reviewers should be offering expertise, not populism and consumerism. That's the way they can distinguish themselves. By attempting to move in the Zagat direction, the critics guarantee they will lose to Zagat. They should carve out their own territory -- the expert territory -- and take control of it.

Zagat's survey comes out only once a year, so it can't report on restaurants when they're still new, as the newspapers can.

That's a thin reed for newspapers to hang on to. Zagat has already started up with the ZagatWire and will slowly become more and more competitive on the news and timeliness fronts.

[Bux]

The Times should take this opportunity to rid itself of its failed and nonsensical anonymity policy.

That's a bit harsh. Ruch Reichl's famed Le Cirque double-review shows that, at least sometimes, the paper's critic is not recognized, even in a high-end restaurant where they presumably would be on-the-lookout.

Are you implying that the time she met her brother and pretended to be an out of towner, she got such devoted treatment because she went unrecognized?

I don't think it's essential for a restaurant reviewer to be anonymous, but there are times when it helps and things he might miss if he weren't anonymous. For all that, I wouldn't assume a reviewer was more capable just because he was unknown. At any rate, as long as a reviewer has a name, he will be quickly known in a major market such as New York.

If there were no ballot box stuffing on restaurant surveys, I might better see the advantage of anonymity. Right now all I see is the disadvantage of a poll of diners who don't have my taste, nor possibly as much knowledge as most reviewers. Reviewers can write in depth and that should be more important than the numbers or stars. Reviewers can offer me clues about whether a particular restaurant will suit my tastes in general and my needs at the moment. A good reviewer can also help me get the most out of a meal.

[russ parsons]

I've got news for you, Bill: Zagat has already marginalized newspaper and magazine restaurant reviews to the point where, under the current system, it's only a matter of time before they start replacing them with excerpts from Zagat.

which is why we have multi-page threads of speculation, advice, criticism, etc., whenever zagat comes out, right?

fact of the matter is, nobody likes restaurant critics but everybody reads them. everybody thinks they could do better, whether it is the avid foodie who is convinced he knows more about the esthetics of fine dining, or the "regular guy" who is positive he knows where to find better food for a whole lot less money. that's just hte nature of the job. the important thing is: they're both reading them.

[rlibkind]

Even more important, it remains to be seen whether Mr. Bruni brings and true Dionysian enjoyment to dining, or operates as an ascetic with a food byline.  Given his abilities and judgemnent as a journalist, if he can demonstrate the he truly approaches the table with an organic "I enjoy eating" approach, his reviews will likely be cogent and useful.

Let's leave the Dionysian to Johnny Apple. Now that's a big, hungry boy.

[Fat Guy]

nobody likes restaurant critics

Certainly there have been restaurant critics, like Ruth Reichl, who have been widely loved. Although being liked isn't a useful goal for a critic to pursue, if people in general don't like restaurant critics then it probably indicates the critics are doing something wrong. People like film critics, literary critics, theater critics, music critics, art critics . . . if they like every kind of critic but food critics, that's a problem. If nothing else, restaurant critics should earn the respect of the public -- being liked can surely follow from that. But the current narrowness of vision and plodding repetitiveness in restaurant reviewing isn't likely to earn much respect at all.

but everybody reads them

I wonder. When I step outside of my small circle of food-obsessed friends and interact with normal people, I find that they have no idea what restaurants have been reviewed in the New York Times. My mother has been reading the New York Times every day since sometime in the 1950s and I can virtually guarantee you she couldn't tell you what day the dining section comes out on or who the reviewer has been for the past several years. The Times happily deludes itself into thinking that 10% of its audience reads the dining section, and therefore believes that 100,000 people read the weekly restaurant review (this is what a past reviewer told me was the paper's operating assumption). I highly doubt that. But even assuming it, that's the same 100,000 people every week. Meanwhile, Zagat is selling, what, three-quarters of a million copies of the New York guide alone? Every year. Meanwhile, I would just love to know how many dozen copies of The New York Times Guide to New York City Restaurants 2004 have been sold.

[Pan]

Although being liked isn't a useful goal for a critic to pursue, if people in general don't like restaurant critics then it probably indicates the critics are doing something wrong. People like film critics, literary critics, theater critics, music critics, art critics . . . if they like every kind of critic but food critics, that's a problem.

Don't be too sure that musicians like music critics and artists like art critics. Also, don't be sure that a liking for the music and art critics for the New York Times is so universal among connoiseurs of music and art. Critics will always be controversial because of the nature of their jobs, but some critics simply don't know what they're talking about - in part, because many of them (probably especially in art) never had any substantial formal or informal education in anything much except for writing and journalism.

Please, don't take this as a general slam on critics, but do let's be careful in assuming that critics in any field are universally liked. Dislike and even hatred of critics sort of goes with the territory, n'est-ce pas?

[Fat Guy]

Of course, critics can be liked or disliked, by their subjects or their audiences, for good reasons or for bad reasons. And every critic will be loved by someone and hated by someone. But when the core of knowledgeable, reasonable, experienced readers lose confidence in you, you have failed.

I happen to disagree that "nobody likes restaurant critics" but I do believe restaurant critics, with a very few exceptions, have failed to earn the kind of respect that the best critics in the arts have. And it can be no coincidence that, having essentially made their beds as consumer reporters rather than arts critics, restaurant critics have to lie in them.

The ideal critic should be a leader and an educator -- almost a parental figure for both the consumer and the industry. That requires integrity, boldness, wisdom, expertise, honesty, independence, skill, stature, and a platform.

My advice to the new critic: be loved for the right reasons, and be hated for the wrong reasons. Be loved not for pandering to the audience (such as by ridiculing Ducasse's unprecedented luxuriousness or by disingenuously and selectively playing the anonymity card) but, rather, be loved for enriching the audience through your writing and through the knowledge you convey. Be hated not for being petty, under-informed, inexperienced, and free of context but, rather, be hated for telling it like it is.

(Edit: Oops, this isn't the advice-for-the-new-critic thread; I guess there's some crossover!)

[oakapple]

Today's New York Post reports on Page Six that:

INCOMING Times restaurant critic Frank Bruni getting on-the-job training from predecessor Bill Grimes at BLT Steak, where they were coincidentally seated at a table next to Alain Ducasse.