Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2004)

[robyn]

Bruni writes for a newspaper that serves millions of readers.  It is by definition a popular, rather than an academic medium.  As a writer in this type of publication he certainly has license -- if not an obligation -- to explore the "popular" restaurants that some percentage of his readers will find interesting or even preferable to the more traditional subjects of NYT reviews...

←

I think you're plain wrong here. Look at the ads in today's NYT - first 3 inside pages (at least the pages in my edition). Chanel, Tourneau, Barneys, Coach, Bergdorf Goodman, Tumi's at Macy's, Interior Design Studio at Bloomingdales, Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, Tiffany, Fortunoff, Talbots Kids, another Bergdorf Goodman, Mikimoto and tumi.com. These places may be "popular" - but they're not exactly average retail establishments. I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens.

But heck - I don't live in New York. If the people in New York want the NYT to turn into a liberal version of the New York Post - distinguishable only by editorial content - that's their prerogative. I can read Tom Friedman on line. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

I am a little confused.  Are you saying that it's not possible for a Thai restaurant to rise above its genre into the realm of "serious" (or whatever term you prefer) cooking? That it, by definition, is the "Batman" of cooking while the French and Italians have "Hamlet" to themselves?

←

There is a fully elaborated genre of fine-dining Thai cuisine. Vong, Spice Market, et al., are examples here in New York. And there are a couple of recently opened Thai places, like Klong, that might be able to mount an argument for one star. Nor is this some random imposition I'm making on Thai cuisine. If you go to Southeast Asia and speak to the people there, you'll find that they stratify restaurants exactly the same way: you've got your street food, your family restaurants, and your more formal stuff ranging all the way up to the fine dining places that tend to be on the top floor of some hotel on the waterfront. A lot of people are determined to read offensive value judgments into such systems of taxonomy, but that misses the point. I love Sripraphai; I just think it's a different species of restaurant from the restaurants that do and should be reviewed and assigned stars. Likewise, you'll find me in hawker centers a lot more often than you'll find me in fancy hotel restaurants, but I don't think the hawker center stands should be getting reviewed on the same terms as the fancy hotel restaurants. I think Sripraphai deserves attention, and have worked to give it attention when I have been able to, because it is the best of its kind. But bending the star system to do it is the wrong way to do it. For a review, $25 and Under is clearly the right place. For well-deserved publicity, write a feature story on Sripraphai and put it on the front page of the section. But don't give us this crap about Sripraphai being a two-star restaurant.

Bruni writes for a newspaper that serves millions of readers.  It is by definition a popular, rather than an academic medium.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that the New York Times is a "popular" newspaper. While it is certainly not an academic publication, it is primarily targeted at the most educated and affluent 0.33 percent of the United States population (assuming a circulation of 1 million and a population of 300 million -- of course the dining section is only read or even received by a subset of that 1 million that a former Times reviewer told me was estimated internally at less than 100 thousand; then again the Times picks up some audience numbers online).

the 17th review of yet another fashionable one- or two-star French, Italian or New American place.

I think this straw man was encouraged by the lull in the activity when William Grimes was on leave and Eric Asimov was writing the reviews. I can't speak for Asimov, but my impression is that it wasn't clear to him at the outset that he'd be substituting for so long, so he played it like an interim critic is supposed to and he did safe 1-2 star reviews for awhile. There was one week I remember when both the $25 and Under and main reviews were of brasserie-type places that didn't need to be reviewed in either column. I think that was the point at which Asimov must have realized that he was in it for the long haul, and he quickly started reviewing more important places.

That being said, I do think there are too many reviews of places that don't need to be reviewed. And certainly Sripraphai is more interesting than a lot of places that are reviewed. But it is an analytical mistake to say that because Sripraphai is more interesting than some places that are reviewed, Sripraphai should be reviewed instead of those places. The issues are separate. The uninteresting reviews problem should be addressed by better allocation of the reviews among the appropriate pool of restaurants for that feature, especially among the many interesting places that haven't been reviewed in years.

[jogoode]

I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens.

←

My dad would do neither, but he reads the Times.

[SobaAddict70]

I have a feeling that if the restaurant were Peter Luger, we'd not be devoting this much passion...or would we?

Soba

[robyn]

Based on that logic, the Times has no business reviewing Off-Broadway theater productions.

For many people in NYC, The Times is the only newspaper they read.  Therefore, they want to see a spectrum of restaurants reviewed in the paper (whether in the main column or $25 and Under). 

Perhaps the problem is that The Times serves two audiences looking for different things:  those who consider it their local "rag" and those out-of-town who read it to be clued in to all things cosmopolitan.

←

Perhaps a better analogy would be deciding to review a Queens College production of Hamlet the week The Producers opened. Unlike the theater section - which frequently has many reviews on a given day - the Dining Section has only 2 on Thursday - the main review - and the $25 and under.

I agree about the split audience - but with out-of-NY-metro area readership now approaching a majority of readers (and exceeding it on Sunday) - perhaps it's not your mother's NYT. Robyn

[robyn]

I have a feeling that if the restaurant were Peter Luger, we'd not be devoting this much passion...or would we? 

Soba

←

Not that anyone asked me - but I'd feel the same way about a review of Peter Luger. Not only don't I like steak - but the last thing I'd want to do when visiting New York is schlep into Brooklyn with a purse full of $100 bills (or do they accept credit cards now?). Robyn

[robyn]

I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens.

←

My dad would do neither, but he reads the Times.

←

Newspapers don't flourish based on people paying for their newspapers. They flourish by attracting high paying advertisers - and - depending on the newspaper - things like classifieds. The WSJ can even get people to pay for an internet subscription (most papers - including the NYT - can't).

Your father is the past of the NYT. Readers like me are the future it's betting money on. If it loses the bet - it will probably wind up circling the drain like a lot of US newspapers. Robyn

[Fat Guy]

Robyn, I will escort you to Peter Luger and ensure your safety next time you come to New York. And to Sripraphai if you like. But I wouldn't give reviews or stars to either. The Peter Luger point is more controversial, because steakhouses have traditionally been reviewed with stars, but I think it's unnecessary. I'd rather see Ed Levine do a big comparative steakhouse review in the Times every year, where he ranks the best and dismisses the rest.

[Fat Guy]

JJ, give me your father's phone number so I can explain this to him.

[Busboy]

I don't know many people who get their outfits at Barneys and then take the subway to eat dinner in Queens.

←

My dad would do neither, but he reads the Times.

←

Robyn --

I'd actually do both - OK Saks, there's no Barney's in DC. Kind of a revealing statement, though, don't you think.

[jogoode]

JJ, give me your father's phone number so I can explain this to him.

←

Are you calling my dad funny looking? Because if you are I'll kick your ass.

[Busboy]

I am a little confused.  Are you saying that it's not possible for a Thai restaurant to rise above its genre into the realm of "serious" (or whatever term you prefer) cooking? That it, by definition, is the "Batman" of cooking while the French and Italians have "Hamlet" to themselves?

←

There is a fully elaborated genre of fine-dining Thai cuisine. Vong, Spice Market, et al., are examples here in New York. And there are a couple of recently opened Thai places, like Klong, that might be able to mount an argument for one star. Nor is this some random imposition I'm making on Thai cuisine. If you go to Southeast Asia and speak to the people there, you'll find that they stratify restaurants exactly the same way: you've got your street food, your family restaurants, and your more formal stuff ranging all the way up to the fine dining places that tend to be on the top floor of some hotel on the waterfront. A lot of people are determined to read offensive value judgments into such systems of taxonomy, but that misses the point. I love Sripraphai; I just think it's a different species of restaurant from the restaurants that do and should be reviewed and assigned stars.

This is an illuminating post, thank you. But I'd ask: does this same hierarchy apply to other cusines? Does the confit at Balthazaar -- a dish French peasants have been making for hundreds of years -- deserve greater exposure and respect than the curry Thai peasants use to flavor their duck? Aren't Vong and Spice Market (and this is a real question, not a rhetorical one) fusion efforts and profit centers operated at a distance by talented celebrity chefs as opposed to actual Thai restaurants? And, regarding your "straw man" statement below, isn't beginning a statement with "a lot of people are determined..." pretty straw-mannish in its own right?

Bruni writes for a newspaper that serves millions of readers.  It is by definition a popular, rather than an academic medium.

I think it's pretty hard to argue that the New York Times is a "popular" newspaper. While it is certainly not an academic publication, it is primarily targeted at the most educated and affluent 0.33 percent of the United States population (assuming a circulation of 1 million and a population of 300 million -- of course the dining section is only read or even received by a subset of that 1 million that a former Times reviewer told me was estimated internally at less than 100 thousand; then again the Times picks up some audience numbers online).

Um, I think anyone in the New York area can pick it up for 50 (?) cents and anyone in the world can read it free on-line. Sounds popularly priced to me. And c'mon -- 1 million households or offices, largely in the New York, is pretty damn good penetration. I'll bet CNN would kill for those numbers. Sure, it's upscale, but I'll wager that even the food section is read by starving but culinarily-aware bike couriers, bridge and tunnel housewives and starving intellectuals who will never get to Babbo. Over time, it certainly wouldn't be unusual or objectionable if the reviewer threw the occasional bone to people who aren't as sophisticated or well-off as the bulk of the Times' readers.

That being said, I do think there are too many reviews of places that don't need to be reviewed. And certainly Sripraphai is more interesting than a lot of places that are reviewed. But it is an analytical mistake to say that because Sripraphai is more interesting than some places that are reviewed, Sripraphai should be reviewed instead of those places. The issues are separate. The uninteresting reviews problem should be addressed by better allocation of the reviews among the appropriate pool of restaurants for that feature, especially among the many interesting places that haven't been reviewed in years.

That would be a tough point to dispute. But a lot of the criticism of this restaurant selection had -- at least until you threw in a little perspective -- a distinctly classist attitude about it. Lots of shots a Queens, subway rides, storefront locations and the like. It may be true that "important" food is rarely found in those circumstances, but the assumption that it can't be undercuts the criticism.

In a larger sense, what I don't understand is the establishment of the star system -- that last refuge of tourists, people too lame to read the whole review and those more concerned with impressing friends than dining well -- as some kind of holy writ. It is, at best, shorthand. It cannot be established as an objective system, why pretend that it can? Anyone who reads the whole review as well as looking at the stars should come away with a pretty good idea of what dinner will look like. Anyone else? I guess it wasn't that important to them.

And, finally, star system or not, where it written that the Times should review only restaurants of a certain type or gravitas. It is an important forum with great influence. So what. Neither Bruni nor anyone in that position should be trapped by the expectaions you or I or Mario or some stockbroker looking to get a private room for 20 for a closing dinner have for his role or, especially, by some arbitrary notion of what is serious and what is not. He got the job, we didn't. The Times' theater section reviews pretty much everything that has a major Broadway opening, no matter how kitchy or excreable. They're trapped by a definition imposed on them years ago by people now dead -- it's on Broadway, it gets reviewed. It doesn't have to happen with restaurants

[bpearis]

There is a fully elaborated genre of fine-dining Thai cuisine. Vong, Spice Market, et al., are examples here in New York.

So Thai can only be fine dining if French techniques have been applied? From my two visits to Spice Market, I can say it's far far away from fine dining. Sripraphai kicks it's ass, food-wise. And from what I hear about Klong, it's good but nowhere in the league of either Sripraphai. Kittichai might be another story.

I like what Bruni's doing. He's a little flowery sometimes, but I like his attitude to dining in NYC which seems to include all the borroughs.

[Stone]

There is a fully elaborated genre of fine-dining Thai cuisine. Vong, Spice Market, et al., are examples here in New York.

So Thai can only be fine dining if French techniques have been applied? From my two visits to Spice Market, I can say it's far far away from fine dining. Sripraphai kicks it's ass, food-wise. And from what I hear about Klong, it's good but nowhere in the league of either Sripraphai. Kittichai might be another story.

I like what Bruni's doing. He's a little flowery sometimes, but I like his attitude to dining in NYC which seems to include all the borroughs.

←

You're not paying attention.

[Pan]

Sripraphai deserved a review a heck of a lot more than Indochine.

I don't share the feeling some of you have that stars are sacrosanct expressions of cost or/and formality and that an exceptional informal restaurant can't possibly deserve to be awarded stars. Based on my own interpretation of the Michelin scale, Sripraphai is "worth a detour." In their scale, that gets 2 out of 3 stars. Of course, we all know that Sripraphai would never get any Michelin stars, but just taking the logic that it's "worth a detour," I'm pleased to see it getting 2 NYT stars.

I'm not so sure it's one of the best Thai restaurants in the country, though. New York, yes, definitely. Better than any number of west-cost Thai restaurants? That I'm by no means sure of, but I have no sufficiently recent comparisons to make.

As for Klong possibly deserving a star, if it deserves a star and Sripraphai deserves none, then stars are based solely on decor and ambiance and are a joke. Fat Guy, perhaps you had something at Klong that was as good as the general standard of food at Sripraphai. If so, please tell us what that was, because based on my experience with their food so far, they seem like a solid, good neighborhood Thai restaurant - which in this city is nothing to sneeze at - but probably nothing more. Sripraphai is certainly more than a solid neighborhood Thai restaurant.

[Jason Perlow]

I think Sripraphai deserves attention, and have worked to give it attention when I have been able to, because it is the best of its kind. But bending the star system to do it is the wrong way to do it. For a review, $25 and Under is clearly the right place. For well-deserved publicity, write a feature story on Sripraphai and put it on the front page of the section. But don't give us this crap about Sripraphai being a two-star restaurant.

Two star restaurant according to the traditional conventions of the NYT rating system (which we can all say with confidence is completely shot to shit now) -- No. "Destination" restaurant by representing the epitome of its genre? Yes.

By the same token, China 46 is also a "Destination" restaurant, although it rated "Very Good" in the Jersey section of the Times. I'm not sure how we can evaluate the star ratings of the other metro sections versus the main paper, though.

[Stone]

I think Sripraphai deserves attention, and have worked to give it attention when I have been able to, because it is the best of its kind. But bending the star system to do it is the wrong way to do it. For a review, $25 and Under is clearly the right place. For well-deserved publicity, write a feature story on Sripraphai and put it on the front page of the section. But don't give us this crap about Sripraphai being a two-star restaurant.

Two star restaurant according to the traditional conventions of the NYT rating system (which we can all say with confidence is completely shot to shit now) -- No. "Destination" restaurant by representing the epitome of its genre? Yes.

By the same token, China 46 is also a "Destination" restaurant, although it rated "Very Good" in the Jersey section of the Times. I'm not sure how we can evaluate the star ratings of the other metro sections versus the main paper, though.

←

By this interpretation, and I'm not suggesting that this is what you mean, Gray's Papaya deserves two stars. (Or Papaya King, I can't remember which is better.) So does Popeye's Fried Chicken, easily the best of its "junk food" genre. Quips like "worth a detour" and "destination" are just that. They are not meant as complete, accurate descriptions. Asserting that any place worthy of a special trip deserves two stars because the Michelin Guide defines two stars as "worth a detour" is semantics.

[Jason Perlow]

Nah, you misinterpreted. I think its possible to be a "destination" restaurant and represent the best food of its genre -- such as Sripraprai, which can be best described as an authentic family-style ultra-casual Thai restaurant where the focus is all on the food and nothing else -- or China 46, which is an authentic, family-style casual Shangahainese restaurant, although its definitely a few notches higher in decor and service than Sripraprai is. However, neither of these two qualify as a "Two star" restaurant in the NYT. I think you need to have a certain level of decor and service, and definitely need to be able to serve alcohol, to qualify for two stars and up.

With that in mind, I think we can say Bruni has decided to throw several decades of standards out the window with the Sripraprai 2 star rating.

[Stone]

think you need to have a certain level of decor and service, and definitely need to be able to serve alcohol, to qualify for two stars and up.

←

Well, shit, if you can't drink, how can you see any stars?

[robyn]

OK. I'm not sure that everyone here gets it. The circulation of the NYT is about 1.5 million+/- depending on day of the week - with half of that circulation coming from outside a very large multi-state area defined as the NY metro area. Over 60% of its revenues come from advertising. Here's the most recent 10-K where you can get detailed information.

The New York Times isn't some blog - or some freebie alternative newspaper. It's a major public company (the NYT newspaper is but a part of the operations). And its goal is to increase profits (that's what public corporations try to do).

That's hard for newspapers to do these days. People - especially younger people - tend to read fewer newspapers. They tend to get the information they want from television - the internet - or nowhere (which is why so many Americans are ill-informed about so many things). And they tend not to want to pay for what they read.

In turn - advertisers are a lot pickier about how they spend their dollars. They don't want to spray them all over the place. They want to spend them where they'll get the most bang for the buck. Which is why you'll see lots of ads for Viagra on TV golf tournaments - but not many for Playstation.

So - for a newspaper to succeed - you "gottta have a gimmick". In the case of the NYT - it has chosen to cast itself as a high end NATIONAL newspaper for upper middle and higher income people who are very interested in world news, politics and cultural events (and I include dining in the latter category). Interested enough to spend hundreds of dollars a year for a newspaper that doesn't say anything about the town where they live (except if your town manages to make the national headlines). Affluent enough to create buyer interest among high end advertisers (whether it's Chanel or the Ritz Carlton hotel chain). More sophisticated than the average USA Today reader - and not satisfied with the Personal Journal in the WSJ (which - although quite good - is generally quite limited).

This has been a trend with the NYT for a long time. I've been a subscriber for over 30 years - during which time I have never lived in NY. But the trend has become more pronounced in recent years as the NYT tries to distinguish itself and save itself from what is probably oblivion for the vast majority of US newspapers.

Like it or not - the main goal of a public company is to make money for shareholders. So it has to keep its target audience happy - which in turn makes its advertisers happy - which in turn keeps its bottom line healthy. And I can assure you that target readers like me really don't care about neighborhood restaurants in Queens. I'll go to a crummy town in France to eat 3 star Michelin food - but a crummy area of NY to eat Thai food in a dumpy place - forget it. If a reader like me wants to read about the best Thai food (and I'd find that interesting) - we'd much more appreciate an article about the most wonderful Thai restaurants in Thailand (or perhaps other countries where there are great Thai restaurants).

As for steakhouses like Peter Luger - sure people from out-of-town go there. Like guys attending a big business convention - or a football game. But they didn't get the idea to go to Peter Luger from the NYT - and they won't be dissuaded from going there even if the place gets a bad review (heck - a lot of people who showed up for the Republican convention in NY were looking for Mama Leone's!). IOW - the NYT is totally irrelevant in terms of places like this.

Again - like it or not - the NYT has - in terms of cultural matters - cast itself as an arbiter of fashion. And once it stops talking about things that are fashionable - or even have any potential of being fashionable - it becomes irrelevant for a lot of its readers - the people its advertisers are trying to reach.

By the way - I mentioned in another thread recently - and Steve reiterated in this thread - that Americans (and other westerners) - in general - are woefully ignorant of non-western food today. We're about where we were 40 years ago when it came to Italian food. And we spoke of meatballs and spaghetti and pizza places as being good Italian restaurants. On my part - I've had high end Japanese food - but only in Hawaii and on the west coast. Middling Chinese (again mostly on the west coast). Nothing but low class Thai. I am perhaps a bit more well versed than most diners - but not much. But I do know enough to know that when I have my first encounter with high end Thai food - it will be in a restaurant that's every bit as elegant as restaurants which serve high end occidental cuisine in the US and Europe - and it won't be in New York (at least not as of today). Robyn

[Fat Guy]

Robyn, I agree that those are some of the corporate strategic objectives of the Times Company, but they are neither the only objectives nor the editorial thinking behind every story. The Times, like most newspapers, does not allow business concerns to drive all of its editorial decisionmaking. Not every story in the Times needs to serve an agenda -- indeed, a certain amount of contrarian editorial thinking adds value to the paper by giving it the appearance of independent mindedness.

When the Times chooses a critic, it gives that person a tremendous degree of independence. That person in turn reports to an editor who has a lot of flexibility. I don't believe critics at the Times routinely get lectured about the Times Company's business strategy objectives. There is surely some awareness, but I give the critics credit for a lot of independent thinking.

There is also a progressive culture among New York Times editors and writers that is often in tension with corporate objectives. And is the Times even profitable as a standalone paper? I think at one time at least it was more of a loss leader for the company, which made most of its profit on smaller papers that it owns. That may be outdated information, though.

In any event, in addition to pursuing the mature highbrow audience -- the Times is no populist publication, no matter how populist its editorial page may be -- the Times is also trying to expand its readership in a number of other directions, particularly into the young-and-hip audience, which, not coincidentally, almost inevitably matures into the mature highbrow audience.

But again, that's what $25 and Under is for. And the Times Magazine food coverage. And various other food stories not only in the Dining and Magazine sections (and whatever section the out-of-towners get that contains the restaurant reviews) but also in Metro, Travel, Weekend and elsewhere. There is no lack of space in the Times for coverage of Sripraphai or of any other restaurant from multiple angles: chef profiles, first-person essays, $25 and Under reviews, Diner's Journal writeups, Magazine pieces, "In Their Own Words" Metro pieces (or whatever they call that one), etc. Nobody is trying to deprive Sripraphai of much deserved exposure. Well, except maybe Robyn.

The point is, none of this adds up to Sripraphai being an appropriate subject of one of Frank Bruni's restaurant reviews, and none of it adds up to Sripraphai deserving two stars. As has been noted about a million times, the best hot dog in the world doesn't get four stars. It doesn't get any. It doesn't even get reviewed.

That's because the star-based reviewing system is supposed to reflect a certain aesthetic. It is no straw man to say that a lot of people are determined to take offense at that aesthetic, and to characterize it as Francocentric or hidebound. But I believe the star system is an accurate reflection of the dining reality of New York City and cosmopolitan culture in general. I don't necessarily think the star system is a good idea -- I have been arguing against it for years -- but as long as it exists I'd like to see it be as meaningful and consistent as possible, like Michelin is at its best.

Any sophisticated cuisine should be eligible for stars, as many as four of them, if presented according to a fine-dining aesthetic. There needn't be anything French or Western about the food at all, and I certainly wouldn't hesitate to advocate four stars for a more elegant incarnation of Sushi Yasuda or any of a number of other Asian restaurants. That no such restaurants have been built isn't my fault or the fault of any critic who hasn't given four stars to a non-French-influenced restaurant. The dining reality is the dining reality. A good critic can push that reality forward through education, advocacy, and enthusiasm. But by giving two stars to Sripraphai?

[Pan]

Asserting that any place worthy of a special trip deserves two stars because the Michelin Guide defines two stars as "worth a detour" is semantics.

←

I don't understand precisely what you mean; please elaborate. Are you suggesting that stars are all about price and ambiance? I prefer for them to be about the quality of the food, above all.

Robyn, I'm not concerned about the Times going bankrupt. In the future, their paper edition is likely to decrease in circulation in favor of their web presence. In the meantime, it's not my business to try to figure out what kind of reviewing would maximize profits for them. That sounds a little cold-hearted, but keep in mind that I don't know anything about how to keep a newspaper profitable, whereas I'm sure they do.

[jogoode]

I can accept Fat Guy's contention that the main review should be reserved for restaurants of a certain aesthetic. Sripraphai certainly doesn't fit into the historical aesthetic. Yet if it's in the $25 and Under, it doesn't get the right treatment in my mind. I want it to be handled by someone who is already credible to me. So, as he also suggests, perhaps it belongs in a feature or one of Ed Levine's incomparable round ups. That way, it reaches its intended audience and gets the space and analysis it deserves.

I am still not convinced, however, that Sri's being reviewed represents an assault on the star system. It just means that on those rare occasions when Bruni reviews a best-of-its-kind joint you have to adjust your conception of star ratings. Not so hard.

[Pan]

I agree, JJ. I think a 2-star rating for a cheap restaurant is likely to be an exceptional occurrence.

[tommy]

It just means that on those rare occasions when Bruni reviews a best-of-its-kind joint you have to adjust your conception of star ratings. Not so hard.

←

exactly. i've adjusted my perception to take into consideration that the star ratings are now completely meaningless. right now there are a handful of "4 star restaurants" in NYC. soon, perhaps, there will be more. i just hope people pick the right when when they're deciding on what 4-star restaurant to visit on their honeymoon, or they might end up with paper napkins and no wine list, but one helluva BBQ brisket.