Restaurant critic flamed

[tsquare]

Small town paper explains it all:

Ripped

(Admin) An excerpt for posterity:

Three months ago Bart Ripp, our restaurant critic and a popular feature writer here for 15 years, left the paper after we discovered what we believe were fictitious sources in several of his reviews and news articles.

It appears now that the fictitious sources are part of a larger problem.

After Ripp left I began to hear from restaurant owners and employees, as did some of our news staffers, that the problem ran deeper.

To find out, I interviewed more than a dozen restaurant owners, chefs and managers about whether they had problems with The News Tribune reviews or restaurant coverage, and to solicit ideas on how we might do a better job with a new restaurant critic.

Repeatedly I was told of several ways in which Ripp used his job, or tried to use it, to get free meals and other benefits not available to others. Such behavior is against Tribune policy and is grounds for dismissal.

Edited June 7, 2004 by slkinsey (log)

[Andrew Fenton]

What's so pathetic about this is that the sins that Mr. Ripp is accused of making are both so piddling, and so pointless. In particular, I don't understand walking out of a restaurant without paying: surely he could charge it to the paper?

[Jinmyo]

"I'm proud of the stories I wrote and my career," he said. "But I'm past that now."

He is now a sales representative for an advertising specialties firm, selling pens, caps and clothing with corporate logos. "I love my new life. I love meeting people and I love selling," he said.

Is this the guy who came up with the idea for the eG thong?

[doodle]

I don't know about anyone else, & perhaps I'm just naive, but I am very impressed that that paper would go to such lengths to re-establish their credibility.

doodle

[Rachel Perlow]

I don't understand walking out of a restaurant without paying: surely he could charge it to the paper?

That was apparently after he had reviewed the restaurant. I'm sure the paper only reimbursed him for meals for upcoming reviews.

[Fat Guy]

This is sad. And I think the paper handled it with the proper note of contrition.

I'd like to suggest that the sins here be divided into two categories, however: those that are fundamentally unethical, and those that are definitionally unethical. Some of the documented behavior seems dangerously close to extortion. That I would consider fundamentally unethical. Other incidents strike me as unethical primarily because they violate the paper's ethics code. I don't feel there is anything fundamentally wrong with reviewers dining non-anonymously (indeed I think it may be ethically superior) but this paper had a policy that should have been obeyed.

I should also add, from my general experience at corporations, that there is an edge to the editorial that feels a bit like the offender has been hung out to dry. I would have liked to see an investigation into exactly what was common knowledge at the paper. Because in most corporations employees will take their cues from managers and not from policies, where there is conflict between what the two sources of authority will allow.

I'm also troubled by the failure of the paper to provide a single on-the-record source. Given that this is an issue of trust, it feels odd to be asked to trust that the sources are credible despite their refusal to be named. The potential to become a tool of retaliation, motivated by ancillary issues, is too high in a situation like this one. The sources should have been named.

[tsquare]

I understand the paper deleting the reviews from their archives, from their perspective. But this is a huge dis-service to the local restaurants. At least there was something more there than an address and phone number for someone to look at. I suppose if you want a restaurant recommendation in Tacoma, there's always eGullet!

[russ parsons]

well, i've known bart ripp for more than 30 years. he and i were sportswriters together at the albuquerque journal, my first job. he followed me as restaurant critic at the albuquerque tribune. he is a wonderful writer and i learned a lot from working with him.

that said, there is no excusing what he did. if the accusations are true (and i don't think anyone who has worked with him would seriously doubt them), he should have been let go long ago. but i would also point out that prior to being hired as the restaurant critic at the tribune, bart's only acquaintance with fine dining was at las vegas buffets when he was covering boxing matches. he was hired for the job because he is a colorful writer, not because he knew anything about food. i mean anything ... at all.

despite our friendship, i was shocked when i found out he had been named restaurant critic. to me, the fact that he was, and that he was able to hold onto the job (and even change papers) for so long speaks to the utter disregard most newspaper administrations have for food and restaurants. anyone who spent 5 minutes with bart would know that he's a wonderful and charming guy, but that he doesn't know radicchio from a radiator. without excusing what he did, i think there is more blame other places than the note allows.

[oakapple]

Small town paper explains it all....

Seattle. Not exactly a small town.

I don't understand walking out of a restaurant without paying: surely he could charge it to the paper?

Reading between the lines here, my interpretation is that it was more about power than money. He enjoyed showing people that he had the power get away without paying.

Also, the article mentioned that Ripp was offered free Seattle Supersonics tickets on at least one occasion - and that was merely the case they found out about, because the e-mail came to his office after he'd already left the paper.

Fat Guy wrote:

I don't feel there is anything fundamentally wrong with reviewers dining non-anonymously (indeed I think it may be ethically superior) but this paper had a policy that should have been obeyed.

Reviewing anonymously seems to be the norm at most papers. Most jouranalistic standards aren't a matter of fundamental ethics, but a matter of what's likely to produce the most useful and reliable stories. A reviewer who openly flaunts his identity is very likely to have dining experiences that almost no one else could have. The reviews might make entertaining reading, but they would lose their connection to reality.

I'm reminded of a comment Fat Guy put in his Landmarc review (on the New York board):

At my table, we had one SOS (sauce on the side) order and it was happily accommodated (we did not identify ourselves to Ms. Murphy until later, so I doubt it was a put-on).

I'm inferring that FG, who realizes that both he and eGullet are well known in the industry, thought there was some value to finding out what kind of service he'd get if he didn't pre-identify himself as an influential media insider. It's the same principle.

[Fat Guy]

Oakapple, that was a very specific instance of investigative journalism -- a case where a restaurant has a well-publicized "no substitutions" policy. In such an instance, of course one wants to test the theory in various ways, and anonymity is one tool in the reviewer's toolkit that can help us accomplish that. But I could just as easily had a trusted confederate try the experiment. The more important issue is that later on I introduced myself to Ms. Murphy and was treated to an in-person discussion of the restaurant, its unique wine list, and more, all of which I felt put me in a better position to inform an audience of readers about the restaurant. So it cuts both ways: anonymity can be a tool, and if you believe the be-all-end-all of restaurant reviewing is that limited consumer-protection function then it ends there. But any journalist will tell you that anonymity is also a severe limitation; as I have analogized in the past, it would be hard to function as a sports columnist without ever having face-to-face interaction with athletes. In any event, I don't wish to recycle the anonymity argument here. I simply want to point out that one should not infer from this journalist's unethical violation of his newspaper's anonymity policy that there is a deeper ethical necessity for anonymity. There may or may not be, but it is a separate issue. My sense is that most casual observers will conflate the two, which is what I'm trying to help us avoid.

[tsquare]

Small town paper explains it all....

Seattle. Not exactly a small town.

Tacoma. Not Seattle. Not a suburb of Seattle either.

(49 square miles. Population - approximately 200,000. Incorporated in 1884)

Edited June 7, 2004 by tsquare (log)

[NulloModo]

200,000 people isn't exactly a small town either...

[tsquare]

200,000 people isn't exactly a small town either...

Guess not - they claim 99th largest in the US! And 3rd in Washington. But about a third the size of Seattle and less than half the size of my former home town. Never realized I was a big city girl.

[lala]

Didn't anyone at the paper notice that this guy never turned in his receipts? You'd think that would have tipped them off...

[russ parsons]

my impression is that it wasn't for his review meals. he paid for those (after all, the paper reimbursed him). i think whoever said it was a power thing was right. i think bart just wanted to be recognized as a vip. i'm afraid this is not uncommon among people who want to be restaurant critics. hopefully, most of them get weeded out early.

[TrishCT]

Since I write for a newspaper this caught me eye. From my perspective, editors are absolutely loathe to say "mea culpa." Oh they will pounce on everyone else's culpa....but they truly hate having to admit their own, it causes major embarrassment, shame and loss of credibility.

I wonder if someone at the paper knew what was going on, turned a blind eye to it, and was forced to admit it before it was made public... Perhaps by some other source. That's usually a prime motivating factor in admitting culpa. The article hints that someone there knew about the quid pro quo.

Although I commend the paper for coming clean now, it seems to be a saving face measure so the new critic can start fresh. It's a shame they didn't blow the whistle while Ripp was still in their employ...now THAT would have been a story.

[Stigand]

to me, the fact that he was, and that he was able to hold onto the job (and even change papers) for so long speaks to the utter disregard most newspaper administrations have for food and restaurants.

Absolutely.

In 10 years I can recall only a handful of complaints about Ripp's reviews that came to me as executive editor.

I can understand that local restaurateurs might be afraid to challenge a powerful food reviewer. But what really disturbs me is that there weren't more complaints from readers (which the article seems to imply). Is restaurant reviewing regarded by readers as so inconsequential or so subjective that ten years of dodgy reporting spark hardly a single letter?

[russ parsons]

I can understand that local restaurateurs might be afraid to challenge a powerful food reviewer. But what really disturbs me is that there weren't more complaints from readers (which the article seems to imply). Is restaurant reviewing regarded by readers as so inconsequential or so subjective that ten years of dodgy reporting spark hardly a single letter?

i think if you review his reviews, bart mainly focused on local mom-and-pop places, not fine dining. and his reviews were more about the colorful owners than about the intricacies of cuisine. and you know what? people really do like those kinds of stories. just don't call them reviews (and, of course, don't hit them up for free meals afterward).

[tsquare]

i think if you review his reviews, bart mainly focused on local mom-and-pop places, not fine dining. and his reviews were more about the colorful owners than about the intricacies of cuisine. and you know what? people really do like those kinds of stories. just don't call them reviews (and, of course, don't hit them up for free meals afterward).

IF you could read his reviews. Fine dining, Tacoma...just barely. I suppose there are one or two places more than a few years old. I did read a few of his reviews in days gone by. They were colorful and entertaining, as Russ notes. I thought they worked well for the dining scene, though I admit I haven't eaten in Tacoma that often.

[slkinsey]

...don't the Zagats reportedly do many of the same things?

[oakapple]

...don't the Zagats reportedly do many of the same things?

No one has ever reported the Zagats saying, "Give us this meal for free, and we'll bump up your food rating from 21 to 26."

[NeroW]

Anyone else like the way the paper is handling it? I think it's quite refreshing.

[aaustin]

I grew up in the area and went to high school in Tacoma and I think I can comment on this issue in a fairly informed manner.

Bart Ripp was very well known in Tacoma. He was "the" critic, as there are a couple of smaller papers in the area, and the Tribune is really the area's only paper of record. I would bet there are 3 Tribune writers who the average Tacoma resident can name and Ripp is one.

Tacoma is a small town despite the population. In the last few years it's really made amazing strides and several good restaurants (including several with roots in Seattle) have opened. The restaurant scene is getting better. But it's a small town. It is extremely unlikely that Ripp would be anonymous even if he tried. Granted, it does not sound to me like he tried; quite the opposite seems to be the case. I think it's safe to guess that the better restaurants always knew when he was in the house.

Ripp also wasn't known for being right very often. He fell into what I think is a fairly easy trap for a food critic who's been in a city too long---the "chestnut" camp, in which the reviewer tows the party line and gives restaurants with good reputations or popular chefs, etc, better reviews than they really deserve, even when the average diner knows that the restaurant isn't as good as it once was. For example, anyone familiar with the waterfront in Tacoma knows that C.I. Shenanigans is really not very good food-wise, though it is very busy due to its "special occasion" appeal and its location. Ripp repeatedly gave it good reviews. He must have been either lying or ....well, I think he was lying.

Now, as for his dining in Seattle without paying the check---that grabbed me the most. Critics pay for their meals and are reimbursed by the companies they work for, so not paying is never an option. And it doesn't sound to me like the meal was comped by the restaurant itself (ie, Ripp was friends with the chef, say, or the manager), because if it were why would this anecdote be mentionable? So it sounds like Mr. Ripp dined and dashed. And that to me is simply appalling.

That said, I am extremely impressed with the editors for acknowledging this. He's been gone for months and they probably could've just considered the issue to be water under the bridge. I am proud that they did not.

Edited June 9, 2004 by aaustin (log)

[ronnie_suburban]

Anyone else like the way the paper is handling it?  I think it's quite refreshing.

Yes, it's mildly shocking to me...but in a good way.

=R=