Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[Rail Paul]

These well-heeled punters tend to share a political and economic philosophy that’s altogether appropriate to their conspicuous consumption. In one popular exchange they asserted at length their moral right to spend a hypothetical $4600 on a single meal. They’re as American as a freshly truffled omelette.

John -

although I agree with several of your comments, this highlight is especially unfair. It was precisely the objections by many members to the assertion which kept the thread going as long as it did. There was significantly greater moral resonance than you acknowledge.

You chose to avoid reference to the specific thread which caused Suvir's absence. Did you avoid the reference as it would undermine your premise of eGullet's spoiled, wealthy elite? Had you named the issue (should France's dalliance with anti-semitic and anti-immigrant parties cause US diners to avoid France?), you would have to acknowledge many issues which spoil your nice construct.

Ditto the issue on chocolate derived from slave labor. We scoped out the issue long before the mainstream US media had it. I spoke with Ben & Jerry's and with Nestle, and reported the issue here. I will probably post an update within the next few weeks as there has been some progress in this human rights issue.

I recognize that it's common for a journalist to decide on a story line, then find the facts to support that story. Wall Street analysts and politicians do the same thing all the time. It's just disappointing when a writer who has participated in many of the same threads chooses examples so selectively the message becomes garbled.

Paul

[lizziee]

"I dealt facetiously with what is indeed an ongoing debate between those whose primary interest is in simple domestic cuisine and those for whom eating is an opulent adventure."

Did you deal with it jokingly? How is calling members "an elite of big spenders" facetious? Quoting Webster's dictionary opulence is defined as "having much wealth" and domestic as "of the home or the family." According to you the on going debate on e-gullet is between those who wish to talk about how they spend their enormous wealth at exclusive restaurants and those who want to discuss home cooking. Your assumption that those of us who enjoy going to and then discussing Michelin 2 and 3 star restaurants have great wealth is a fallacy. Tommy's comment is most relevant; "a lot of us choose to spend a good portion of our disposable income on dining. there is a distinct and important difference here."

I also don't understand why both topics are mutually exclusive. If you don't care to discuss a topic, then don't. If there is a topic that you feel should be addressed, then do.

There are many threads that I feel I can intelligently contribute to and I do. There are threads where I feel I can't contribute, but enjoy reading, even if I don't post. There are threads where I have little or no interest and I don't read them. I think it is important that e-gullet allows each member to decide for themselves what is relevant and not dismiss those as elite snobs for engaging in their own relevancy.

Your reducing the "so-called" debate between 2 extremes - home cooking and opulence is not supported by the actual threads. Neighborhood restaurants, bistros, ethnic restaurants etc. etc. are discussed in depth. You painted a picture of e-gullet that is just not supported by the facts. Rail Paul's comments are also very indicative of how far you strayed from the facts.

"Believe me, if a genuine tabloid journalist had taken an interest in this drama, he would have dug out further unsavory details that I chose not to make use of."

Are you saying that you are a tabloid journalist? If so, then, that would explain the sensational aspect of your article and the "twisting of the facts" to support your thesis.

"There are those who privately agree with me and apologize for not going public, thus subjecting themselves to similar abuse."

I am sorry if you see this disagreement as abuse. I see it as an honest discussion of what you wrote and published and now have to "live by those words."

[jaybee]

No answer to my question?

[John Whiting]

The kangaroo court is hereby adjourned. Talk amongst yourselves.

[jaybee]

Jinmyo:  The article just presents eGullet as John sees it... It's a place we call: the Whiting Zone.  If you think that the article is a hatchet job, well, he's been brandishing it and sharpening it since he arrived...

Jinmyo speaks the truth. Why, John, are you so chagrined that the ax is two-bladed.

You dish it out with sharp wit and well chosen words. But your retreat is far less graceful.

[jaybee]

Lizziee, you ask very good questions. Since John so ungraciously invited the "kangaroo court" to talk amongst ourselves, I suggest the following thesis. John eschews material gain for his work. However, the admiration of his peers for his writing is another form of currency. The peer group he is writing for, in his judgment, would pay good coin for a piece that sticks the picador's lance in the rich, indulgent, conspicuous American gourmand. Hence, the "facetious" poke at the high rolling punters.

Had he used his considerable writing talent to compose a piece about the extraordinary community that has developed here, with many people making new friends, in person and over the web; about the spirited passion and heat with which issues are discussed and taken to remarkable lengths and sometimes very funny sidebars; about the affection I sense and feel for and from many members from distant places whom I would never have met in the normal turn of events; about the sharing of information and desire to help on another with tirvial and not so trivial problems...well, had he written about that, it would have been a dull article and he would not have been paid much "coin" by the audience for whom it was written. So you see, aggrandisement comes in many forms, not all of it is currency.

[jaybee]

There are those who privately agree with me and apologize for not going public,

Oh, now it's the old PM story. I recall you didn't have much time for this tactic when Steve P used it to defend himself.

[tommy]

Every one of these was enjoyable and only a minor percentage were marred by Tommy and I drunkenly duking it out in the parking lot... 

and when you're ready for some more of that *$^(%( just let me know mister.

[mynamejoe]

Out of ten paragraphs John wrote about e-gullet, I counted three that said something that could be perceived as negative. What about the other seven that said good things? Unfortunately, his article has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy in this thread, it seems.

[tommy]

Out of ten paragraphs John wrote about e-gullet, I counted three that said something that could be perceived as negative. What about the other seven that said good things? Unfortunately, his article has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy in this thread, it seems.

i don't think that the issue here can be qualified on a point-by-point basis. speaking for myself, which is really the only way i can speak, it is the overall feel and message of the piece that ppl are taking exception to.

[Bux]

Out of ten paragraphs John wrote about e-gullet, I counted three that said something that could be perceived as negative. What about the other seven that said good things? Unfortunately, his article has turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy in this thread, it seems.

John was asked to write about a certain sequence of events.

I was not asked to write an essay on the essence of eGullet, but to report on a certain sequence of events.

No matter how few lines were devoted to this, it was the essence of the article. What bothers me about this is why his director had such a fascination with this series of events that had not fully played out, why he needed to have it written about in this professional journal and why John acquiesced not only to write about these events, but managed to reach conclusions based on speculation. I will be the first to admit that to the best of my knowledge, John did have anyone's cooperation. Public officials, politicians and corporate leaders may expect to be required to speak out or face public speculation about their public or private lives, especially in the press. Still I wouldn't begrudge them an expression of dissatisfaction at the speculation. I'm not sure we are open to the same level of public speculation and I'm sorry to see it done so prematurely by a member. It's not so big a story that it needed to be reported by any deadline. It would be naive for anyone not to expect some people here to have been offended and want to speak out about it. While no thread here is going to accurately express the full range or depth of public feeling, I'm also upset to have this one referred to as a kangaroo court.

John only did what he felt was right, and he was willing to share his thoughts honestly here with us. No one should be offended by his article, and it should give us all pause for thought about who we are and how we express ourselves. By the same token, John should not be offended by what's said here whether it comes from the heart or the head. It's not a kangaroo court if only because it's not a court. No one is trying him, members are merely responding to what they see as provocation.

If you browse John's web site and read his reviews of Paris bistrots you will understand why I was delighted by John's appearance on this site. No one regrets more than I do that John was distracted here and sometimes lost the focus of his love for the heart of French cuisine--that part to which we are more likely to refer to as French cooking rather than French cuisine--and was so easily and frequently distracted by the talk of luxurious meals at three star restaurants to which he needed to reply in a negative manner. For me they are one and the same. I know few people who can separate a love for one from the other. That what I've considered the best French kitchen in NYC can send out a classic tête de veau for me in lieu of what I ordered with confidence that I'd find it an honor is all the proof I need of this. That there is social injustice or economic inequity will not be addressed by denigrating haute cuisine. For all the joy I take of sitting in a three star restaurant and consuming a fabulous meal, I relate to it not through the well heeled diners at other tables, but though the cusiniers and chefs who produced it. I find criticism of the excellence achieved to be aspersions on the inspiration, hard work and talent of the workers who have produced the meal with pride and thus I understand the criticism from that corner.

[Bux]

speaking for myself, which is really the only way i can speak, i

A short coming if you are ever going to take over the world.

[tommy]

I was not asked to write an essay on the essence of eGullet, but to report on a certain sequence of events.

i missed this part. i retract most of my statements, as "knowing the audience" now puts this a bit more in perspective.

[lizziee]

"I was not asked to write an essay on the essence of eGullet, but to report on a certain sequence of events."

The definition of a headline is the printed lines at the top of a newspaper article. giving the TOPIC of the article.

From John's web site this is the headline he used for his article on e-gullet:

"Get a meal! Hanging Out with the Virtual Foodies. These are the big spenders who discuss in detail the culinary delights they have sampled in their treks to a whole galaxy of Michelin-starred restaurants - the fruits of a Nasa-like expenditure."

If you accept Webster's defintion of a headline, how does John's headline refer to a specific sequence of events and not an essay on the essence of e-gullet?

[John Whiting]

I've got to butt in long enough to point out that you've got the wrong article. That one was written -- and discussed at length on eGullet -- several months ago. The one now under discussion is not yet on my web site.

Edit: I should add that Bux's last post was extremely gracious.

[tommy]

i'm still trying to figure out what "sequence of events" john was charged with "reporting on."

[Jinmyo]

tommy, somehow I keep reading the title of this thread as "Bumfight".

[Steve Klc]

Tommy--good point. I've never read an issue of the GFW newsletter so I have no idea about its fairness, editorial policy or reportage. Its mission statement certainly appears laudible:

http://www.gfw.co.uk/index.html

For those just catching up, and somehow unaware of either John's proudly-worn bias or clear writing talent, John first went public about eGullet here:

http://www.whitings-writings.com/essays/get_a_meal.htm

then he introduced us to the GFW newsletter and the sensibility of its new editor here:

http://forums.egullet.org/ibf/index.php?s=...7235&hl=ehrlich

So, Richard Ehrlich is newsletter editor and perhaps was the one so concerned about events at eGullet or perhaps it was one duly elected "Sarah Jane Evans" as president of GFW. In the course of the above-mentioned thread, John wrote of Ehrlich saying his "op-ed piece was addressed specifically to professional UK food writers. Richard Ehrlich is in fact an American and returns regularly to New York, which is his home.”

One of the strengths of eGullet is that all points of view are welcome into the fold--however marginalized and even if those points of view seem at times disingenuous. All should be given their day in the much larger court of public perspective. The larger issue goes beyond John, however; though he is perfectly capable of defending himself and his views, he has every right to withdraw. The real focus should lay bare Ehrlich, Evans and the GFW itself, since as John wrote: "Be they ever so crass, there’s a kind word to be said for editors."

John says "I was asked to write the article by one of the directors, who had been following with interest what was happening on the site. He thought that I had accurately caught the essence of it." If you disagree--well, like an old dog you're not going to teach John any new tricks. Turn your attention elsewhere, perhaps where it more rightly belongs.

Rather than an isolated rant online on a personal website, as John's first essay was, there was presumably an editor involved with this GFW newsletter "piece." I'm not sure whose judgement should be called more into question.

[Ron Johnson]

Who is John Whiting?

and how does he know how much money I make?

[lizziee]

I apologize John for assuming that the headline I quoted was your latest article on e-gullet. That shows both of us that some assumptions can be wrong.

[Fat Guy]

It was an easy mistake to make: John is perhaps the only living journalist who has written two articles about eGullet!

[Jaymes]

Sounds to me like the editor of the food newsletter was, as editors everywhere constantly are, looking for something interesting and newsworthy to fill his space.

News outlets are voracious sharks.... and this particular news shark has to limit his topics to food. To publish feature after feature regarding foodie web sites certainly looses appeal after a time... So should he do yet another: "On eGullet, people get together in a virtual community; people from all over the world talk about food; people get together in their own neighborhoods." This already has been well-covered in the media....just so much more blah de blah de blah de blah...no new information for his readers there.

But suddenly on one of the premier food sites there's a big flap that has edged into politics and religion, creating considerable controversy. The resulting acrimony may, some say, even threaten the very viability of the site itself. Also, one of the moderators appears to possibly have been kicked off. Is that not newsworthy, by the standards of a newsletter for food writers?

So, if you were the editor of the newsletter and had 300 subscribers expecting the latest foodie culture info, what would you do?

If I were he, I'd call a Guild member that I knew to be an excellent writer, as well as a participant of the site, and assign him to cover the story.

I'd call John.

[John Whiting]

I'm not going to continue defending myself or my article, but I'd like to point up what is starting to emerge: EGullet is a well-established food site which is making itself more and more worthy of attention, even without internal crises. In fact, it's growing big and complex and interesting enough to become the subject of all kinds of articles: informative, laudatory, satirical, parodic, grateful, condemnatory. It's fair game. Furthermore, its survival depends, not on a constant influx of strangers, but on the continued attention of its members. In other words, it's virtually impregnable.

So -- imagine a worst case. Suppose I had set out deliberately to destroy eGullet by holding it up to ridicule. Well, it wouldn't matter. I couldn't damage eGullet even if I were to form a charitable organization for that sole purpose. I'M JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT! Forget about all this crap and get back to the table.

[Jaymes]

In other words, it's virtually impregnable....even if I were to form a charitable organization for that sole purpose.

I'M JUST NOT THAT IMPORTANT!

Golly, John, you're THAT IMPORTANT to me...

But don't worry, I'm "virtually impregnable" as well (ever since the change), even if one "were to form a charitable organization for that sole purpose."

So, Darlin', Cassoulet in the Autumn, maybe???

[Fat Guy]

You are important to me, John. But I will certainly take you up on your offer to reconvene on a more important topic, such as bacon.