Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2005)

[tommy]

By my count, four steakhouses have received rated reviews in the last two years (BLT Steak, Wolfgang's, Ben & Jack's, Keens). All of them received two stars.

←

iirc, Ben & Jack's received a single star. from Marian Burros, who seemed somewhat turned off by the place. or perhaps she was turned off by Pat Mason's hair. i forget.

[oakapple]

iirc, Ben & Jack's received a single star.  from Marian Burros, who seemed somewhat turned off by the place.  or perhaps she was turned off by Pat Mason's hair.  i forget.

←

I stand corrected. It was one star, though not for that reason.

[oakapple]

I'm replying to a comment in the Del Posto thread, to ensure that thread doesn't degenerate into a debate about the NY Times editorial policy.

IMOP -the real point is how the Times views the role of its restaurant critics. The Del Posto piece in question was a 'features" oriented piece --most likely a result of a PR push by the management of the restaurant.

Just about everything that appears in the Times's lifestyle sections is partly the result of skillful PR.

What is of concern, at least to me, is having the Times critic write the piece. The Times has several well qualified reporters and/or food writers who would have been more than capable of writing the Del Posto article. I still see no "special insight" only Bruni could provide reflected in the piece.

The article was an overview of the entire Batali/Bastianich empire, with an opinion on each of those restaurants—including some unfavorable comments that clearly reflected Bruni wearing his critic's hat. Obviously the Times has other writers capable of expressing opinions about high-end dining, but they pay only one person at a time to do that. Right now, he's the guy.

Also problematic is evenhandedness of coverage--will Bruni do a piece on preopenings  of Sergio Maccioni's or Danny Meyers next place?

The Times's restaurant coverage has never been even-handed. Compass has had three rated reviews in four years, while Jean Georges hasn't had a rated review since the Ruth Reichl era. It's not as if the paper has some civic duty to give every restaurant equal time. The critic covers what he finds worthy of coverage.

The Times is, once again, showing that the editors see no difference in the roles of their critics and their features and news writers and reporters. They got into some trouble here with l'affaire Hesser recently

←

It is clear that the Times wants their restaurant critic to comment on developments in the restaurant scene generally, rather than merely reviewing restaurants one at a time. Since there is only one critic, he needs to decide which developments are sufficiently newsworthy to justify the space, and this means there will be winners and losers. Perhaps he will write a preview article on Danny Meyer's next place. But perhaps he will not. Trust me, Meyer also has a publicist, as does every major restauranteur in this city. They all want Frank Bruni to write about them. Although I criticize Bruni for many things, I think he understands that publicists are trying to manipulate him. It's his job to decide whether a new development is really what the press release says.

The analogy to "l'affaire Hesser" seems inapposite. I presume you're referring to her three-star review of Spice Market after Jean-Georges Vongerichten wrote a glowing blurb on the dustjacket of her book, Cooking for Mr. Latte. There has been no suggestion that Frank Bruni has a similar conflict of interest.

Edited December 22, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[JohnL]

I'm replying to a comment in the Del Posto thread, to ensure that thread doesn't degenerate into a debate about the NY Times editorial policy.

IMOP -the real point is how the Times views the role of its restaurant critics. The Del Posto piece in question was a 'features" oriented piece --most likely a result of a PR push by the management of the restaurant.

Just about everything that appears in the Times's lifestyle sections is partly the result of skillful PR.

What is of concern, at least to me, is having the Times critic write the piece. The Times has several well qualified reporters and/or food writers who would have been more than capable of writing the Del Posto article. I still see no "special insight" only Bruni could provide reflected in the piece.

The article was an overview of the entire Batali/Bastianich empire, with an opinion on each of those restaurants—including some unfavorable comments that clearly reflected Bruni wearing his critic's hat. Obviously the Times has other writers capable of expressing opinions about high-end dining, but they pay only one person at a time to do that. Right now, he's the guy.

Also problematic is evenhandedness of coverage--will Bruni do a piece on preopenings  of Sergio Maccioni's or Danny Meyers next place?

The Times's restaurant coverage has never been even-handed. Compass has had three rated reviews in four years, while Jean Georges hasn't had a rated review since the Ruth Reichl era. It's not as if the paper has some civic duty to give every restaurant equal time. The critic covers what he finds worthy of coverage.

The Times is, once again, showing that the editors see no difference in the roles of their critics and their features and news writers and reporters. They got into some trouble here with l'affaire Hesser recently

←

It is clear that the Times wants their restaurant critic to comment on developments in the restaurant scene generally, rather than merely reviewing restaurants one at a time. Since there is only one critic, he needs to decide which developments are sufficiently newsworthy to justify the space, and this means there will be winners and losers. Perhaps he will write a preview article on Danny Meyer's next place. But perhaps he will not. Trust me, Meyer also has a publicist, as does every major restauranteur in this city. They all want Frank Bruni to write about them. Although I criticize Bruni for many things, I think he understands that publicists are trying to manipulate him. It's his job to decide whether a new development is really what the press release says.

The analogy to "l'affaire Hesser" seems inapposite. I presume you're referring to her three-star review of Spice Market after Jean-Georges Vongerichten wrote a glowing blurb on the dustjacket of her book, Cooking for Mr. Latte. There has been no suggestion that Frank Bruni has a similar conflict of interest.

←

I think you are missing the point.

This is not about impropriety. It is about the paper blurring the lines between:news reporting, features writing and personality profiling, and critical reviewing.

It is not just the Times but many newspapers as well as other media outlets (print mostly) facing declining readership.

Theatre critics traditionally do not review plays in preview!

If Bruni is the restaurant critic then putting his name on a piece that is, ostensibly, a features article about a restaurant that is not open amounts to a possible preview of his formal review.

Did he not cover the decor in the same manner he does in his formal reviews?

I would argue that this certainly does lead to questions about "evenhandedness!"

We all know about the symbiotic relationship between publicists and PR and the press--nothing inherrently wrong here--unless one's critic is authoring preview pieces about entities he or she will be called upon to critically assess/review.

I have no problem with Bruni's diners journal pieces about the Tourandel empire--all those places were open and had, I believe been reviewed.

But, by putting Bruni's name under the del Posto piece lends the weight or gravitas of the Time's critical reviewer not just a food writer or features writer.

So why shouldn't Danny Meyer or Sergio Maccioni expect less from the Times coverage when they expand their empires?!

Also, is there anything in the del Posto piece that a good food writer at the Times (or a freelancer) would not have covered or noted?

By the way, just to play devil's advocate and conspiracy theory guy--say Bruni writeds a piece on

an unopen restaurant and comments negatively on something--say the too large menu or the blue carpet--is he not actually providing some opportunity for the management to make some pre opening "adjustments".

Not that anyone would, of course.

So, I ask you, should the roles of criticism and features/news writing be different? if so--in the Del Posto piece, is Bruni a features writer or a critic? Should a critic offer criticism in a features piece? Should any writer review restaurants and plays and dance etc? Can readers divorce the two roles when reading them ? can Bruni when writing them?

should a hard news reporter do a profile piece on a major political figure he or she covers?

Does anyone care about journalistic integrity?

again, I am not impuning Bruni or Hesser --I believe this is more about the editors and management of the Times and the direction of the newspaper.

The Del Posto piece was fine by me--written by anyone other than a "critic."

[M.X.Hassett]

JohnL just curious when you say "Sergio Maccioni " do you mean Sirio?

[JohnL]

JohnL just curious when you say "Sergio Maccioni " do you mean Sirio?

←

Yes! Sirio!

thanks for pointing that out.

(though there may be a "Sergio" somewhere in the family!)

I stand corrected.

[oakapple]

It is about the paper blurring the lines between:news reporting, features writing and personality profiling, and critical reviewing.

Obviously we saw the piece differently. I saw it as a critic writing critical piece about a trend in the city's restaurant industry that he deemed worthy of observation. I see no problem, ethical or otherwise, with critics occasionally taking a step back, and writing about trends in the industry they cover.

An ethical issue would arise if the writer is so deeply "in bed" with the subject matter that s/he can no longer critique it objectively. That was a distinct possibility with Amanda Hesser and Spice Market. But Bruni hasn't compromised himself in that sense (at least, not as far as we know).

Mind you, I often disagree with Bruni's critical judgments, as well as the quality of the prose with which he expresses them. But I have never doubted that he retained the necessary independence to remain a critic.

Theatre critics traditionally do not review plays in preview!

Indeed they do not. This was not a review of Del Posto, although he did make such comments about other Batali/Bastianich restaurants that are open.

So why shouldn't Danny Meyer or Sergio Maccioni expect less from the Times coverage when they expand their empires?!

Because there isn't a God-given right to be covered in the Times every time you think you've done something important enough.

Also, is there anything in the del Posto piece that a good food writer at the Times (or a freelancer) would not have covered or noted?

It is doubtful that another writer would have visited all of the Batali/Bastianich restaurants and provided a brief critique of each. I'm not saying no one else could have (Hesser, Prial, Burros, and Asimov have all written reviews in the past, so presumably are capable).

By the way, just to play devil's advocate and conspiracy theory guy—say Bruni writes a piece on an unopen restaurant and comments negatively on something—say the too large menu or the blue carpet—is he not actually providing some opportunity for the management to make some pre opening "adjustments".

He probably is. The same would be true, however, whenever Bruni writes a Diner's Journal column, and follows it up with a rated review, which happens several times a year. The rated review and the rating itself will endure on the Times website for years to come. Theoretically, a restaurant could make corrections based on the DJ column in time to influence the full review, although I am not sure whether that's ever happened.

Indeed, at least in Bruni's case, the DJ column is usually a fairly good predictor of what he'll write in the full review. I don't know whether that's because: A) The restaurants don't try to make changes; B) They try, but are unsuccessful; or, C) Frank's already decided what he thinks, and nothing can be done to change his mind.

So, I ask you, should the roles of criticism and features/news writing be different? ... Should a hard news reporter do a profile piece on a major political figure he or she covers?

←

I don't see a problem with it, as long as the critic isn't figuratively "in bed" with the subject. There are plenty of examples where a Times reporter becomes an expert in a particular 'beat', and then writes a "step-back" piece in which s/he speaks broadly about trends in a particular area. The pieces are usually captioned differently (e.g., "News Analysis") to make clear that they're not straight reporting. The Bruni piece in question was captioned "Critic's Notebook," which is the standard label on the food page for Bruni's quarterly "restaurant trends" column.

[JohnL]

Oakapple,

Not to belabor this, but ethics are not what I am really looking at.

The fact is, the del Posto piece was about Del Posto a restaurant that had not opened at the time the article was written. Bruni may have talked about how Del Posto "fits into the Bastianich/Batali empire" and the NY restaurant scene but he wrote about what Bastianich et al are attempting to achieve with Del Posto. Bruni commented on the menu the type of food Del Posto was going to serve and the decor--all things he (or a Times critic) will have to write about when a formal review is published.

The accompanying photos--the entire piece itself--fall into the category of a "profile" or special features article. If we agree that the Del Posto piece in question is a very different animal than a critical review then all I am saying is critics should write critical pieces (criticism) and features writers should write features.

If you see the del Posto piece as involving a critical eye or critical commentary then I would ask--should the Times be applying a critical eye to a restaurant that is not open to the public? Should they have their critics write about plays that are not open or musical CD's where the artist is still recording or mixing them?

If, as part of a formal critical review of the restaurant, Bruni wrote about the Bastianich/Batali empire that would be fine.

The Del Posto piece smacks of a profile features article (photos and all) and critics should not be writing these things. Amanda Hesser or Mimi Sheraton or any one of the fine food writers the Times has on staff or any features writer would have been more appropriate to the task.

Again, there are journalistic reasons that there are departments and categories at newspapers--if the Times is fine with their critics writing profiles and news pieces and features about things they are going to cover before they write their reviews then so be it.

If the Times is going to publish pre reviews of yet to open entities then fine.

I say they are wrong to do so--in fact--if someone other than Bruni had written the Del Posto piece we would be talking about del Posto not who wrote the article.

[Sneakeater]

This sort of carping is really silly, but I don't understand a universe where Red Cat gets two stars and Jovia gets one star.

Or where Ici gets one star and Jovia also gets one star.

If star ratings weren't stupid to begin with, I'd probably even get a little worked up about it.

[Dominicana]

This sort of carping is really silly, but I don't understand a universe where Red Cat gets two stars and Jovia gets one star.

Or where Ici gets one star and Jovia also gets one star.

If star ratings weren't stupid to begin with, I'd probably even get a little worked up about it.

←

Makes me ambivalent to the whole system in general, I no longer run out on Wed. to see what's what. It has almost become bathroom tabloid reading, entertainment not educational information. How Red Cat and Blue Hill NYC are ranked in the same universe is beyond me. Maybe I'm the broken one.

Andrea

Edited December 23, 2005 by Dominicana (log)

[oakapple]

How Red Cat and Blue Hill NYC are ranked in the same universe is beyond me.  Maybe I'm the broken one.

←

It is precisely to foster such arguments that the star system exists. To give a non-food example, look at these ratings of the latest Peter Jackson film, King Kong. The New York Post rates it "A" ("the year's best movie"), but the SF Chronicle rates it "C–" ("the film is overlong, repetitive and lacks impact"). It's human nature to rate things, and it's human nature that there will be disagreements. The Times rating of a restaurant is simply one data point, among many.

Having said that, the star ratings cover a wide range. Perhaps even Frank Bruni would agree that The Red Cat is at the lower end of the two-star range, and Blue Hill is at the upper end. After all, Bruni awarded three stars to Blue Hill Stone Barns, and the cuisine at the original Blue Hill is awfully similar.

I also think that there's a +/- one-star margin for error among reasonable people. I happen to agree with those who've argued that The Red Cat was overrated by a star, but the Chowhounds absolutely adore the place.

Edited December 23, 2005 by oakapple (log)

[oakapple]

The Bruni Digest has now added a 2005 Best of Bruni post.

Highlights include:

Most Irrelevant: Frederick's Madison and Bette

Biggest Winners: Sripraphai and Bistro du Vent

Biggest Losers: Alain Ducasse, Ninja, Koi

The author notes that the Sripraphai review actually dates from November 2004, but "it marks, according to many, the most scandalous thing in Frank's record to date." I agree with the comment, but sticking to the calendar-year theme, I'd replace it with The Red Cat.

An honorable mention to Compass, which deserved its two stars, but has to be the luckiest restaurant in the city, with its third rated review in four years.

[SobaAddict70]

For discussion in regards to 2006, click here.

Soba