New York Times

[chopjwu12]

Hello,

I just want to get something off my chest that was written up i the nj food section of the new york times this past sunday. A restaurant called the frog and the peach was just reviewed and in my mind was given a very very poor review. now im going to speak my mind on this matter so bare with me. I have several friends at the frog and the peach and i myself who works at restaurant nicholas have eaten there several times. This SO CALLED food writter and critic didnt have a clue about food or about the food world. Apparently she doesn't even read her own news paper. I was informed of the phone conversation that took place between the head chef and the writter. First she asks him a little bit about his back ground and everything. he goes on to tell her about some of the places he has worked and thats where it all went down hill. The chef told her he did a stint at cafe boloud one of daniel bolouds restaurants. not only didn't she know what restaurant cafe boloud was but this lady never heard of Daniel boloud. One of the greatest chefs of all time. Then she went on to ask about the chilean sea bass menu item. Apparently she ate there twice and the dish changed from the bass to halibut. As most of us know most restaurants are boycotting the bass because of over fishing and such. Well this women goes on to ask why in the world did they change the seabass to halibut. She didn't understand why the cange was made!!!!!!!!! Well if she picked up the food section of the times from two wednesdays ago there was this tiny articly that was about 15 paragraphs long with a huge picture of a bass that went into extreme detail why the fish needs to be boycotted for a while. Obviously she doesn't read her own paper. Then she wnet on to lie to everyone in her article saying that they weren't sure if her and her friends could bring themselves to order the endagered sea bass when she didn't even have a clue that it was endangered. She also went on to tell the chef that basically she was an english major in college and doesn't really have any food background. Well it showed in the ignorence that was written and discussed over the phone. i know there was alot more that went on that i dont feel the need to discuss because ithink i have said enough. I just think that if the new york times is goign to hire people to write about food they should look into a food critic who can write not an english major looking for some kind of job. Especially when the review can make or brake a restaurant. Something like that shouldn't be left in the hands of a fool.

Now im not saying the frog and the peach has the greatest food in the world but its worth more then 2 stars.

i have found out that this isn't the first time something like this has happened but im not quite sure if i can divulge anymore restaurant names at this time. We will see what the egulleters have to say about this the i will share another very interesting black mark on the face of the New York times.

[Jason Perlow]

chopjwu:

For starters, the NYT New Jersey food section doesnt rate by "stars". It rates by fair, good, very good, outstanding.

I wouldn't condemn a food writer for not having any formal food background. The main writer of that section and one of its best reviewers, David Corcoran, is normally the editor of the NYT Science section and is serious an eater or reviwer as anyone else. Steven Shaw, who just won a James Beard award, and is one of the principals of this site, also writes for the NYT NJ food section, and is a former attorney. To say that someone has no right to write about food just because they have no formal training or experience in the food industry is silly.

I'l forward this to David, and see if the writer of the peice in question wants to reply to your inquiry.

[Fat Guy]

If the restaurant had been given a good review, no doubt the chef and his partisans would be out proclaiming that the reviewer in question is a genius and really "gets it."

I don't know if the above report of a phone conversation is accurate or not, since we don't have a tape recording or even a first-hand account, but I can suggest this: I've conducted plenty of interviews with chefs on the phone. It's absolutely amazing to me some of the reports I hear back about what was said. In reality, I hardly say anything at all. I ask questions. In response to the answers to those questions I say things like, "okay." It's pretty funny what sometimes gets read into that "okay," like, "That moron never even knew what bacon was before I told him about it."

Were I a chef or restaurateur who had just gotten a poor review from the New York Times, the last thing I'd do is blab to my friends about what an idiot the reviewer is. What I'd do, for one thing, is examine my cuisine and see if it's really so bad. I'd make changes. I'd talk to my more knowledgeable customers about their preferences. Then I'd call the critic in a level-headed and professional manner and go point by point through the review. Where there were mistakes, I'd point them out very politely. Where there were correct criticisms, I'd say, you know, you're right, and I'm fixing it. And at the end of the call I'd thank the critic for the review and say, "You know, I really appreciate your review and your time, and I do hope you'll come back and see us again soon. I think you'll see a very different restaurant." Few critics can resist such an invitation, and such a strategy will likely get you a new and better review within a year. Everybody likes a success story. It's like with high-school teachers: They enjoy the great students, but the ones they really love are the troublemakers who shaped up and pulled it out at the end thanks to the loving intervention of a gifted mentor.

[Rail Paul]

A restaurant called the frog and the peach was just reviewed and in my mind was given a very very poor review. now im going to speak my mind on this matter so bare with me. I have several friends at the frog and the peach and i myself who works at restaurant nicholas have eaten there several times. This SO CALLED food writter and critic didnt have a clue about food or about the food world.

Question - are you basing your evaluation of the writer (Karla Cook, if I recall) on this single review? Or have you considered other reviews she has written in the past?

Have you agreed or disagreed with the other reviews, and why?

Have you called the restaurant to express your support for them, and your interest in re-visiting it? Reviewers express a point of view, sometimes loyal partisans need to express their support, too, if they disagree.

[cookandwife]

I BELIEVE THAT WAS A VERY FAIR REVIEW,I HAVE BEEN THERE 2 T IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS AND WAS ALWAYS DISSAPPOINTED,TWO STARS IS FAIR.

[Fat Guy]

They do or don't have stars in the NJ reviews? I thought they did, but they're not online so I can't tell. Anybody have a physical copy of the NJ edition of the paper handy right now?

[tommy]

They do or don't have stars in the NJ reviews? I thought they did, but they're not online so I can't tell. Anybody have a physical copy of the NJ edition of the paper handy right now?

there are no stars given to restaurants reviewed in the NJ section of the NYT. this is true at least for the last several years.

has anyone seen an axe lying around?

[Fat Guy]

Interesting. I saw on the Ryland Inn site awhile back that they claimed to have four stars from the New York Times:

http://www.rylandinn.com/awards.htm

I just went and clicked on the image of that article, and in the original there are no stars -- just the word "extraordinary."

Which raises the question of why there are no stars for NJ restaurants.

[tommy]

I just went and clicked on the image of that article, and in the original there are no stars -- just the word "extraordinary."

Which raises the question of why there are no stars for NJ restaurants.

we just like to be different.

"Extraordinary" is the highest rating you can receive in the NJ section of the NYT.

how does it go? poor, fair, good, very good, extraordinary. did i miss one? you can probably equate these, if one feels the need, to zero, 1, 2, 3, and 4 stars. however, you can't cut them in half like you can stars. and everyone knows a 1/2 star can make all the difference in the world.

[Wilfrid]

I am looking forward to the other black mark on the face of the New York Times!

[Bux]

I have mixed feelings about the original post. Generally speaking, I'd prefer to see cooly composed messages, but sometimes people need a place to vent and chopjwu12 acknowledged that he needed to get this off his chest and asked people to bear with him. That may not excuse any rash post, but at least it's an acknowledgement that what follows may appear blunt and rash. Part of my reaction was that the NY Times hires restaurant reviewers for Manhattan who have no previous experience or training in food so it should come as no surprise that they do the same with their NJ staff. In fact my complaints about the Times food pages over recent years is that some of the writers make false assumptions that they are prepared to cover the subject at hand without further research and that the Times seems negligent in regard to it's fact checking responsibilities, so no news there.

Stars or no stars, two stars would be a good rating in NYC, although not a stellar rating.

My guess is that with no stars, we're talking about a "good" rating. In NYC, a place like Cafe Boulud only gets a three star, every good, rating. I'm not sure if the ratings are localized, but Cafe Boulud would be the best restaurant in town in 99% of this country.

[chopjwu12]

Fat guy,

First of all i want to get some things cleared up. I was informed of what was said on the phone the friday before the review was put out. before the restaurant even new how many stars the reviewer was going to give them. Tommy is right about the stars i think it just gets broken down from word to stars. But like i said before i knew the whole story before the review even came out on paper and then when i read it, to me it proved that this lady didn't have a clue.

Im basing my opinion on many reviews done by the times in NJ. Let me share another story and since im not offiliated with this restaurant i can do so. The stage house inn was reviewed a while ago and the chef called the ny times because he was concerned with the reviewers knowledge about food. Well when the chef asked about it the Times basically told him to go to hell and he would never be reviewed by the times again. Theres a few more i know about that i cant share.

In response to Jason Now im not saying that a person has to be trained in food to be able to write about it. Because there are only a handfull of people with that kind of knowledge. What i am saying is that for a person to write a fair review on a restaurant that person should have some sort of extensive food knowledge. At least know what is going on in the industry at that given time. For example the sea bass. Dont not have a clue about it and write like you do. Especially when a person and a restaurants career depends on something like this.

That would be like Say jason there was a engineer. Its time for his yearly review and the company hires me a cook do evaluate him. Since i dont have a clue about engineering would my review that could mean your job be fair. I dont think so.

[tommy]

That would be like Say jason there was a engineer. Its time for his yearly review and the company hires me a cook do evaluate him. Since i dont have a clue about engineering would my review that could mean your job be fair. I dont think so.

i'm an engineer, and i know about food. i'm guessing i'd do a fair job reviewing both an engineer and a restaurant.

i'm seeing some of your points, but i think it's fair to assume that the reviewers for the NYT are qualified, perhaps not in your eyes, but in their employer's eyes. additionally, i would like to point out that a lot of the facts you are presenting are hearsay, even to you. i have to question how accurately the situations were relayed to you, and then to us.

[Rail Paul]

i'm an engineer, and i know about food.

Yeah? So, where's your locomotive?

Your food credentials, on the other hand, are widely respected

[chopjwu12]

Like i say i dont want to give names because i wouldnt want what happened to the stage house to happen to other restaurants.

[Ron Johnson]

Tommy drives locomotives? That is so cool.

[Wilfrid]

Maybe Tommy will one day have a folk hero museum dedicated to him:

"Museum honors Jonathan Luther "Casey" Jones, folk hero and engineer. Mississippi railroading interpreted. 1923 oil burning steam engine on display. Museum (fee). Souvenirs. No camping."

I am sure Tommy wouldn't want any camping either.

[Steve Klc]

Back to some of the real issues at hand--are the very best of New Jersey restaurants NOT reviewed by Grimes? If not, those that review NJ restaurants do not assign a star ranking but assign words instead--which do or do not "line up" to the same words assigned to the star ranking employed by Grimes?

I'm sorry to appear dense but as this stuff isn't online--I see a question coming for Mr. Corcoran--and I'd like to know how a place like the Ryland Inn gets away with claiming any star ranking from the Times?

It seems the vagueness of the system is purposeful--surely it is apparent to all involved?

Which begs the question--is there a two-tier system employed by the NY Times in evaluating restaurants across the bridge which is inherently unfair to restaurants on both sides of that bridge?

If this stuff from the NJ section of the paper is not online--do we have any ability to come up the list of the all the restaurants accorded the Times ranking of "extraordinary," the date of that review and the name of the reviewer?

[Ron Johnson]

Maybe Tommy will one day have a folk hero museum dedicated to him:

"Museum honors Jonathan Luther "Casey" Jones, folk hero and engineer. Mississippi railroading interpreted. 1923 oil burning steam engine on display. Museum (fee). Souvenirs. No camping."

I am sure Tommy wouldn't want any camping either.

Oh dear. I think I have been there. It is Jackson, TN?

However, I engaged in no camping.

[TCD]

Fat guy,

The stage house inn was reviewed a while ago and the chef called the ny times because he was concerned with the reviewers knowledge about food. Well when the chef asked about it the Times basically told him to go to hell and he would never be reviewed by the times again.

Gee, I spoke with David prior to and after the review coming out and I don't recall that part of the story. SHI received an "Excellent" review with which he seemed satisfied (although "Extraordinary" would have been better of course).

[rozrapp]

Steve Klc posted on Jul 2 2002, 12:24 PM

Back to some of the real issues at hand--are the very best of New Jersey restaurants NOT reviewed by Grimes? If not, those that review NJ restaurants do not assign a star ranking but assign words instead--which do or do not "line up" to the same words assigned to the star ranking employed by Grimes?

Steve, to my knowledge -- and someone may have to correct me -- Grimes does not review NJ restaurants for the Times. All NJ restaurant reviews appear in the Sunday NJ section which is only distributed in NJ, and the current reviewers are Karla Cook and David Corcoran.

I have that section right here in front of me, and at the bottom of the information box it says: "Ratings Poor. Fair. Satisfactory. Good. Very Good. Excellent. Extraordinary." I suppose "Good" to "Extraordinary" could line up with 1 to 4 stars. I think I've seen Grimes use a "Satisfactory" rating on occasion, but I'm not sure if he uses "Fair" and "Poor."

[Beachfan]

I have no formal training in food. My knowledge is not extensive (although my waistline is). Nonetheless, if I could write well, and had the time and funds, I would try my hand at reviewing.

My partial qualifications would be that I've eaten a lot of great food, and I'm enthusaistic about great food.

[ngatti]

Oh My! Restaurant reviews and reviewers! Oh... Let me at 'em!

Well not really. I've not read the review. Some points, though:

For all the sturm und drang over a critics professional qualifications it's important to remember that Karla Cook (I believe) is a CIA grad. Though I believe that a knowledge of food or at least dining experience is a prerequisite for a critic or food writer in general, I DON'T believe that it's necessary for a critic to have the type of technical background that a CIA education affords. In fact, it is probably a detriment. Many pros here on eGullet may agree that a professional food education tends to be dogmatic and parochial and although leaving one technically proficient in a cooking sense, tends to leave one somewhat behind the curve vis a vis a cutting edge culinary sensibility.

Another side of this, and I've expressed this informally to many of you in other venues is that cooks just 'don't get out much'. We can only offer our opinion within the context of being professional cooks and chefs. A much more narrow context than one would think given the recent celebrity afforded many of us. We generally cannot offer the type of richness of opinion that a Plotnicki or cabrales or brown or lizziee can (I offer them up as an unscientific sample of what I consider to be a dining audience). IMO, we pros as a group tend to be to be deconstructive and nit-picky over the food we eat to a fault. This disqualifies us as a group to be restaurant critics in all but he most informal sense. The final disqualification concerns the term Food Writer. Yes indeed!, the first and foremost prerequisite for a Food Writer is the ability to WRITE! Many of us haven't the skills to do that effectively.

I can only offer my opinion on the general quality of the writing. IMO Corcoran tends to be better than Cook. Possibly for the reasons stated above. I haven't read the review nor eaten at The Frog and the Peach and

cannot comment on the specifics of this review.

Thanx for listening

Nick

[jhlurie]

It's been said already...

The claimed "two stars" in that range of seven possible NJ ratings is not a bad rating at all.

A VERY GOOD is cause for opening up some expensive champagne, and extending your restaurant's lease. A NJ restaurant is usually overjoyed to get a GOOD. Two stars has got to be somewhere in that range, since its the halfway point of the scale.

Unless this person was claiming that they got the SECOND LOWEST rating, which is NOT what I've been reading here.

[chopjwu12]

Ok,

Now i agree and disegree with some of the stuff said. What nagatti said was very true about a profetional cook being a critic. We are far to critical about to many small things. The one point he made about her being a cia grad im not sure about but i heard she was an english major of some sort.

To answer jhlurie a very good is an average rating i dont think anyone would be popping the bubbly for a very good an excellent maybe.

To TCD how close are you with tye chef of SHI? I got that information from one of his close friends.

If anyone gets to read the review i think the first part of the review is what bothers me the most. Its all a fabrication. This women didn't even know that the seabass was an endangered fish and was being boycotted. But in her review she talked about how she and her friends were so concerened if they should order it or not because it would be wrong to order it but it would be wrong to deprive them selves of the most interesting dish on the menu. All a big fat bunch of BULL.

By the way when do reviewers go out to eat with more the 4 people. She said she was with like 7 or something. That didnt make sence either to me. And if the menu is so cluttered with entrees and your there to review a place what the hell is all the fighting about how many people will order the bass?

Thats right there is what really gets under my skin and the fact that i think the restaurant is better then very good.