Masa Review

[rich]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this. In yesterday's NY Times Amanda Hesser gave Masa, the new $300 per person Japanese restaurant in the Time Warner Building, a ???? rating.

In reading the review she states the sushi bar would be four stars, the regular seating three stars and if pressed would give the restaurant one rating or the other. However, she mentioned that this would be her last review and the new food critic would take over with next week's column. So in deference to him, she decided to pass on a review and let him make his own decision in the future.

Is this a cop out? It sounds a lot like sour grapes. I've never felt one way or another about her reviews. She seems okay to me, but this was totally unprofessional.

Do your job Amanda, you're getting paid by the NY Times for a review, so review. Don't leave it for the next guy to clean up. If you think it's worth four stars then go on record, if it's three stars then so be it. But most of all, I feel ashamed for the Times in allowing her to pass the buck. Those editors must be running scared since the plagiarism fiasco.

This would never happen with egullet reviewers!

[Bux]

It seems to me that she was getting paid by the NY Times who should determine what her job was. I recall Ruth Reichl's lament about having to award stars. She didn't want to do it, but the Times required her to do it. My hat's off to Ms. Hesser for breaking the mold, although I have to assume it was with the permission of the NY Times. Amanda's review made it clear that she felt the experience of dining at the sushi bar was a four star experience, but that dining at a table was not and she defined the difference between a four star experience and a three star one as a matter of being transported or not. I've not been a fan of her reviews. I've been a fairly vocal critic, but I need to be fair, at least in my own eyes. In what way would it have been more professional for her to have chosen either three or four stars for Masa? It was totally professional for her to express the opinion she offered with the supporting review. I thought it was most professional to have acknowledged that a three star rating would have been unfair to the chef and that a four star review may be misleading to diners, especially as the number of stars are bandied about without the full text of the review. If it was unprofessional, it would have been because she didn't do what she was paid to do for the NY Times, but it was a service to the potential diner. I don't think criticism should come from the ranks of diners on this issue. It was anything but a cop out on her public responsibility.

[rich]

In what way would it have been more professional for her to have chosen either three or four stars for Masa? It was totally professional for her to express the opinion she offered with the supporting review. I thought it was most professional to have acknowledged that a three star rating would have been unfair to the chef and that a four star review may be misleading to diners, especially as the number of stars are bandied about without the full text of the review. If it was unprofessional, it would have been because she didn't do what she was paid to do for the NY Times, but it was a service to the potential diner. I don't think criticism should come from the ranks of diners on this issue. It was anything but a cop out on her public responsibility.

I respectfully disagree. If she wanted to split the review - fine.

My criticism lies with passing to buck to the new reviewer. She said she wasn't offering a "star" review because this was her last column and would allow the new critic to award the stars "in the furure." In what - two or three years? Or do they plan on reviewing Masa again within the next few weeks or months? That would be unfair to other restaurants and diners waiting for reviews to be printed(especially since the Times can only publish 52 reviews a year).

As she said at the end of her diatribe "...I would rather not...". Rather not? - totally, absolutley unprofessional by any journalistic standards - even the National Enquirer rises above that!

[mikeczyz]

i didn't understand the point of the article. i would've much rather seen the column take the route of a critical eye to the dining experience, instead of a faux review with faux stars.

mike

[Lesley C]

I thought the review was excellent, BUT the hesitation of awarding stars may point more to inexperience (in reviewing, not writing) than unprofessionalism.

This is a common dilemma with sushi restaurants: dinner is always better at the sushi bar. Had she reviewed a dozen of them, she might have seen that coming. I think they could have either split the stars (which really doesn’t make sense if the prices are the same) or gone to three stars if the majority of the restaurant's seats are away from the sushi bar.

I thought the big cop out here was the silly ???? rating and to stay tuned for the BIG and FINAL decision when Frank Prial takes over. If that's the case, why did she bother reviewing the restaurant when Prial could have started out with Masa next week?

[Jason Perlow]

You mean Bruni, I think. Not Prial.

[mrbigjas]

THREE AND A HALF STARS

just sayin.

Edited June 3, 2004 by mrbigjas (log)

[oakapple]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

Actually, it's been discussed a bit on the Masa thread in the New York forum. This is one of those topics that could go in either forum, as it's about New York and it's also about Food Media.

So in deference to him, she decided to pass on a review and let him make his own decision in the future.

To the contrary, she did write a review; she just decided not to award stars. Your comment seems to imply that the stars are what really count, and the words backing them up are extra baggage. To the contrary, I think it's the words that really count; the stars are just a headline. Otherwise, the Times might as well just publish star ratings alone, and skip the articles altogether. Remember, the "$25 and under" and "Diner's Journal" columns don't come with stars, so you could say that a majority of the Times's restaurant reviews don't come with a rating. Hesser's review was like a Diner's Journal entry that appeared on a Wednesday, instead of a Friday.

Hesser has done something remarkable that a lot of people have clamored for: she actually explained the underlying logic between a 3-star vs. a 4-star restaurant. How many times have we commented that the connection between the review and the final rating was hard to comprehend? Here's a reviewer not merely lifting the veil on her thought process, but actually admitting that she's conflicted over what the final rating should be. Would that reviewers admitted such doubts more often!

Do your job Amanda, you're getting paid by the NY Times for a review, so review. .... I feel ashamed for the Times in allowing her to pass the buck. Those editors must be running scared since the plagiarism fiasco.

I have great difficulty drawing any analogies to the Jayson Blair incident. She did write a review. The only way to say she didn't is if you believe that the stars are more important than the words. It would be a sad day for journalism if that's the case.

This would never happen with egullet reviewers!

LOL!

My criticism lies with passing to buck to the new reviewer. She said she wasn't offering a "star" review because this was her last column and would allow the new critic to award the stars "in the future." In what - two or three years? Or do they plan on reviewing Masa again within the next few weeks or months? That would be unfair to other restaurants and diners waiting for reviews to be printed(especially since the Times can only publish 52 reviews a year).

I think it's implicit that Mr. Bruni will review Masa relatively early in his tenure, although not necessarily in a few weeks or months. Now, perhaps you consider that unfair, but when exactly did the Times start dolling out its reviews fairly? A number of Hesser's reviews have been re-evaluations of restaurants previously covered, where there was no particular reason (such as a new chef or a major overhaul) justifying a second look. There have been some complaints about her judgment, but I don't recall any complaints that she had no business writing about these places. There have also been times when the Diner's Journal entry was followed by the main review a very short time later. Yet, we can all name significant restaurants that have never had a Times review at all.

[rich]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this.

Actually, it's been discussed a bit on the Masa thread in the New York forum. This is one of those topics that could go in either forum, as it's about New York and it's also about Food Media.

So in deference to him, she decided to pass on a review and let him make his own decision in the future.

To the contrary, she did write a review; she just decided not to award stars. Your comment seems to imply that the stars are what really count, and the words backing them up are extra baggage. To the contrary, I think it's the words that really count; the stars are just a headline. Otherwise, the Times might as well just publish star ratings alone, and skip the articles altogether. Remember, the "$25 and under" and "Diner's Journal" columns don't come with stars, so you could say that a majority of the Times's restaurant reviews don't come with a rating. Hesser's review was like a Diner's Journal entry that appeared on a Wednesday, instead of a Friday.

Hesser has done something remarkable that a lot of people have clamored for: she actually explained the underlying logic between a 3-star vs. a 4-star restaurant. How many times have we commented that the connection between the review and the final rating was hard to comprehend? Here's a reviewer not merely lifting the veil on her thought process, but actually admitting that she's conflicted over what the final rating should be. Would that reviewers admitted such doubts more often!

Do your job Amanda, you're getting paid by the NY Times for a review, so review. .... I feel ashamed for the Times in allowing her to pass the buck. Those editors must be running scared since the plagiarism fiasco.

I have great difficulty drawing any analogies to the Jayson Blair incident. She did write a review. The only way to say she didn't is if you believe that the stars are more important than the words. It would be a sad day for journalism if that's the case.

This would never happen with egullet reviewers!

LOL!

My criticism lies with passing to buck to the new reviewer. She said she wasn't offering a "star" review because this was her last column and would allow the new critic to award the stars "in the future." In what - two or three years? Or do they plan on reviewing Masa again within the next few weeks or months? That would be unfair to other restaurants and diners waiting for reviews to be printed(especially since the Times can only publish 52 reviews a year).

I think it's implicit that Mr. Bruni will review Masa relatively early in his tenure, although not necessarily in a few weeks or months. Now, perhaps you consider that unfair, but when exactly did the Times start dolling out its reviews fairly? A number of Hesser's reviews have been re-evaluations of restaurants previously covered, where there was no particular reason (such as a new chef or a major overhaul) justifying a second look. There have been some complaints about her judgment, but I don't recall any complaints that she had no business writing about these places. There have also been times when the Diner's Journal entry was followed by the main review a very short time later. Yet, we can all name significant restaurants that have never had a Times review at all.

I wasn't making an analogy at all, I was merely suggesting that the NY Times editors have been running scared since that unfortunate incident and that may be a reason this review was allowed to be published without a final chapter. Editors aren't pushing reporters to "get the story" as much.

If the Times plans to review it in the near future then it shouldn't have been reviewed now. Does the Times need to create a ???? category when it publishes its current list of "starred" restaurants?

Of course the stars aren't as important as the review, but they serve as a reference for a lot of people. If the stars mean nothing then the Times should drop them. I would have no problem with that at all.

I never said Ms. Hesser didn't have the right to write the review, I just think she should have finished the job.

Edited June 3, 2004 by rich (log)

[Lesley C]

You mean Bruni, I think. Not Prial.

Yeah right, sorry. Busy day.

[oakapple]

If the Times plans to review it in the near future then it shouldn't have been reviewed now.

Perhaps the historians among us can help out, but there's definitely a precedent for re-reviews of prominent restaurants not long after the initial review. Grimes reviewed Alain Ducasse twice in a fairly short time period; Ruth Reichl gave Le Cirque time to clean up its act after her famous "double review," and then went back, restoring the fourth star she had stripped. And bear in mind, these were return visits by the same critic. The next review of Masa will be by a different critic.

Does the Times need to create a ???? category when it publishes its current list of "starred" restaurants?

Let's not get silly; this was obviously a one-off situation. And by the way, the Times's "current list of 'starred' restaurants," as published on its website, is still the old list. It doesn't include any review written since Grimes left, and demoted restaurants are still listed at their former ratings. It also includes some restaurants that have since closed. This tells you how serious the Times is about keeping this list fastidiously up-to-date. We seem to be a lot more preoccupied about it than they are.

Of course the stars aren't as important as the review, but they serve as a reference for a lot of people. If the stars mean nothing then the Times should drop them.

You are right that the stars serve as a reference for a lot of people, but I see no harm in this unusual case. No one makes a casual decision give Masa a try. Anyone looking to the Times for guidance will quickly find that Hesser considered it a four-star experience, provided you sit at the sushi bar, and a three-star experience otherwise. Hesser has thus done a greater service than if she had chosen one rating or the other. Obviously the system would break down if the Times started doing this regularly. The fact it has been done once does not undermine the system - assuming you believe the system was all that clear-cut to begin with.

[Bux]

What's great about the review is exactly what's bad about it. She didn't finish the job and there's that great big gaping hole in the number of stars now owned by Masa. Neither the restaurant nor the review fit neatly in the NY Times pigeonholes and that doesn't make me unhappy. Of course something important is missing. The stars are important. The sinking of the Titanic important. Important is not always good.

I wondered how many people felt she was implying Bruni would soon review Masa. When reading Hesser's review I almost felt we should expect Bruni's review next week. What a terrible thing it would be to allow one restaurant to take two of the 52 reviews a year, but what a wonderful way for the dining public to compare two reviewers. Wouldn't it be great to be able to read an out going critic's review in conjunction to one by the new reviewer? I doubt it will actually happen however. It's just another perverse idea like the one that says awarding stars tends to pander to the mass market diner's tastes and that it's just nice to make the public deal with a review without them once in a while, even when the review clearly states the number of stars.

[johnnyd]

Thanks anyway, Amanda, but Tony Bourdain's review (3/18/04) was much better...

I have been to the mountain top.

I have seen......things.

Everything is different now.

[GordonCooks]

In reading the review she states the sushi bar would be four stars, the regular seating three stars and if pressed would give the restaurant one rating or the other. However, she mentioned that this would be her last review and the new food critic would take over with next week's column. So in deference to him, she decided to pass on a review and let him make his own decision in the future.

Is this a cop out? It sounds a lot like sour grapes. I've never felt one way or another about her reviews. She seems okay to me, but this was totally unprofessional.

Do your job Amanda, you're getting paid by the NY Times for a review, so review. Don't leave it for the next guy to clean up. If you think it's worth four stars then go on record, if it's three stars then so be it. But most of all, I feel ashamed for the Times in allowing her to pass the buck. Those editors must be running scared since the plagiarism fiasco.

I agree 100% with Rich - she accepted the paid position and reviewed her meals as such. If a sushi bar has 4 star capabilites, then grant them by all means.

Complaining about the dining room is like bitching about the grilled cheese at Katz's. Yet another non-winsome, childish display to the detriment of Masa

[oakapple]

Complaining about the dining room is like bitching about the grilled cheese at Katz's. Yet another non-winsome, childish display to the detriment of Masa.

As patrons may very well be seated in the dining room, Hesser's complaints about service that is "slipshod" absolutely belongs in the review. Faults in the service lie within the purview of any responsible critic, especially for a restaurant that is charging so much. I fail to see how this is childish.

I agree 100% with Rich - she accepted the paid position and reviewed her meals as such.

Her paid position required her to deliver a review on a deadline, which she did. If you disagree with the conclusion, that's fair enough. But she did her job. And by delivering an unorthodox conclusion, I would argue that she did a greater service than if she had followed the conventional formula.

[Jinmyo]

Hesser's review makes clear both Masa's strong and weak points (though another seems to be that he is much less creative with cooked dishes than he was in LA and is serving primarily sushi).

I thought it an effective and clear review. No surprises though.

That she did not "award" stars but is leaving that for Bruni I feel is also an effective play (or ploy) in that:

1) as an interim reviewer who has made some allegedly bizarre judgements that have had much unpleasant bounceback for the Times* she avoids further embarassment while

2) plumping for the coming of Bruni and

3) leaves the reviewer post in a manner both winsome and coy as she turns to her new post in the NYT Magazine.

No surprise there either, really.

All in all, Amanda, it was an interesting run of articles. And whatever flak there was, having this interim shtick in the bioblurb on the back jacket flap of future books will look quite fetching.

____

* I've even seen the term Hessergate used.

[GordonCooks]

I agree 100% with Rich - she accepted the paid position and reviewed her meals as such.

Her paid position required her to deliver a review on a deadline, which she did. If you disagree with the conclusion, that's fair enough. But she did her job. And by delivering an unorthodox conclusion, I would argue that she did a greater service than if she had followed the conventional formula.

Every Review has a Star rating - That leaves her article as more of an Op/Ed piece. If this is the new direction of the Times reviews then so be it - but doesn't this cast a shadow on her other reviews? e.g. The food is 2 star, the bathrooms are 4 star, the sevice is 3 star, the bar is 1 stark, the wine list is yada, yada, yada...

[oakapple]

Every Review has a Star rating - That leaves her article as more of an Op/Ed piece. If this is the new direction of the Times reviews then so be it - but doesn't this cast a shadow on her other reviews? e.g. The food is 2 star, the bathrooms are 4 star, the sevice is 3 star, the bar is 1 stark, the wine list is yada, yada, yada....

I doubt that this is the new direction of the Times reviews, and I don't think anyone's saying so. Breaking the mold once doesn't change everything going forward. Breaking the mold occasionally may actually do some good, as it forces us to challenge old assumptions. The Times's reviewing system isn't perfect. Perhaps it could use some shaking up.

[Pan]

I think perhaps the mold was just let to rest for a week. I don't think they broke it.

I'm surprised by how upset or angry some of you are at her "non-rating," which is actually a very clear rating.

[Suzanne F]

A rating for a place that charges $300 per person -- and isn't that only for the food; aren't beverages extra? Why do you need a rating, for god's sake? To help you decide whether or not you want to go? If you need a number of stars for a place like that, I respectfully submit there is something wrong with you. Besides, if you read the review, you know exactly what she thought about the place, its pluses and minuses.

Having that little box with stars makes it possible for readers to decide about a restaurant without reading the complete description, and coming to their own conclusions about whether or not they want to try a place. It lets people off without making them read. I am firmly in the camp of those who wish there were no ratings ever, stars or otherwise, and that all reviews were written in the style of this one: it told me everything I want to know about the place. It was a fine piece of reportage. That is what I have enjoyed so much about Hesser's reviews: they have been news stories, not flights of fancy or autobiography (my beef with some of the other Times folks who have written or still do write about food and restaurants).

[Behemoth]

I am firmly in the camp of those who wish there were no ratings ever, stars or otherwise, and that all reviews were written in the style of this one: it told me everything I want to know about the place.

Same here.

[robyn]

I don't eat world class sushi/other Japanese bar type food that often - but - when I do - the sushi bar is usually the only way to go. I thought the review was on point in that it informed potential diners who've never eaten world class food of this kind (which probably covers a lot of people who live in New York) that they may have a markedly different experience if they sit at a table as opposed to the bar.

Perhaps my only criticism of the review is I don't know how much Ms. Hesser knows about world class food of this type - and I wondered how the food compared to other world class restaurants in North America (basically on the west coast and in Hawaii). Was this simply terrific for New York - or was it terrific in a broader sense? Robyn

[Truffle]

Ah, bon.

Both Hesser and Masa got some great press out of this thread, non?!

[Suzanne F]

As if either of them needed it.

[challah-baker]

Now, now, now. If any of US were leaving a temporary post as NYT restaurant critic would WE eat at Masa as our last meal....