If a restaurant doesn't want to be in a guidebook

[Fat Guy]

Hmm. Which board should we put that one on? So many interesting possibilities.

[cakewalk]

The reason the analogy works for me (not speaking as a lawyer since I'm not) is just because you're in a bar and don't want to be hit on--you are choosing to go into a public place where there is an expectation someone else might talk to you (unless you're putting out the killer vibe) just as when you open a restaurant there is an expectation the public will come, eat, pay and return.  Don't get hung up on the transactional element of this--I don't see that rendering the analogy invalid.

Well, let's carry the analogy one step further.

Being in a public place means an individual is open to being hit upon (the phrase itself has negative conotations, but let's say, for our purposes, it's really neutral). I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but, just as a restaurant is public, when an idividual goes outside, he/she is also "public."

We've agreed (I think) that if the individual says "no" to the attempted "hit," that "no" ought to be respected. I don't think anyone is arguing against that point. (Not even me. I'm arguing over whether or not anyone and everyone has a "right" to make the hit in the first place.)

But that is precisely the point that is being argued in the case of the restaurant -- whether or not their "no" ought to be respected re: whether or not they should be written up in a guidebook. In this case, most people seem to think that the restaruant's wishes are not necessarily the most relevant ones.

So I still say the analogy doesn't hold. (But if you see me in a bar, feel free to buy me as many drinks as you like.)

[Suzanne F]

message deleted by SF; I've GOT to get some work done!

[Steve Plotnicki]

If I was Kenny Shopsin, I would tell all the guidebooks to publish a listing and then I would hang a sign outside of the restaurant with a different name on it. All the regulars would know, but the people who aren't regulars would think the place went out of business. And then for the non-regular people who came in to ask about it, Shopsin could deal with them on a case to case basis, which is pretty much what he does now. He just wants to not be besieged by those types of people. But that would screw the guidebooks pretty good because it would make their listings seem out of date. Some things just aren't a matter of *rights." Some things need to be dealt with on a practical level.

[tommy]

Steve S: True, your aim in calling was not to get permission. But the fact that you were denied permission should be taken into consideration. Look, I know that you'll do what you feel you should do; I just disagree with your view. Such is life.

i was under the impression that this isn't about getting "permission" from the restaurant, but rather it's a "what should i do" question. maybe i've missed something.

edit: looks as if someone retracted her statement.

[Wilfrid]

Okay. I am a journalist working on a story about a local politician. I hear he made some offensive remarks at a private dinner. I call him and tell him what I heard and ask whether it's true. He then says, "I don't want you to write about that." Excuse me? That's not in the rules of the game.

Why can't we stick to a simple and precise analogy like that? The language about assaults and slander is utterly inapplicable.

[Bux]

When was Fat Guy denied permission? When did he ask for it? He was calling--and I can only assume he was calling to verify phone numbers and address as Shopsin hung up on him before he could ask any question. Since when do we need to interpret rudeness as a request for anything?

I hate analogies too, but let's assume I notice that the young woman next to me has left her purse on an adjoinging bar stool and that it's open. I turn to her and get as far as saying "Excuse me, but I couldn't help noticing .." when she blows smoke in my face and says "Fuck off." Where do we go from here. Should I care about her purse or the potential loss of her privacy from the guy who's eyeing her wallet and credit cards? Maybe she thinks he's much more attractive than I am and that blowing me off is her way of letting the other guy know she's discerning. Maybe the open purse is her way of offering her phone number.

[Fat Guy]

Fat Guy, is this an all inclusive listing of restaurants like the yellow pages or a selected list of restaurants? If the latter, does the restaurant meet the criteria for selection?

The latter, and probably -- the author (I am editing, remember) seems to be competent.

[Wilfrid]

If Shopsin just hung up, I don't know what the thread is about. I am assuming "I don't want to be in the guide book" is more or less what he said. I can see no reason Steven should give such a comment a second thought.

Reality check: Does everyone agree that what Steven is doing is journalism? WHat's all this about hitting on people?

[Fat Guy]

What would your definition of journalism be? Is writing or editing (I assume both fall under the same umbrella of process) a guidebook along the lines of Fodor's New York or Zagat (possibly two different answers) considered journalism?

[Suzanne F]

Tommy, if you mean me, I did not so much retract it as decide that this was a time-waster right now. I still agree to disagree with those who hold differing opinions -- as always, without any name-calling. Try it sometime.

[Wilfrid]

What would your definition of journalism be? Is writing or editing (I assume both fall under the same umbrella of process) a guidebook along the lines of Fodor's New York or Zagat (possibly two different answers) considered journalism?

Are you serious, Steven? What else would it be?

[tommy]

Tommy, if you mean me, I did not so much retract it as decide that this was a time-waster right now.  I still agree to disagree with those who hold differing opinions -- as always, without any name-calling.  Try it sometime.

huh?

[LaNiña]

suzanne, chill the hell out, please. really. your reaction is disproportionate.

[tommy]

suzanne, chill the hell out, please.  really.  your reaction is disproportionate.

indeed. for the record, i've never called suzanne f a name as far as she knows.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - But reporters get that type of request from politicians all the time and sometimes they agree. Not every piece of news has to be reported. Quite often the press agrees to withhold information on a number of different grounds. Look at Francois Mitterand and how the French press didn't discuss that he had a mistress and a child out of wedlock until he died. And I'm not passing judgement on whether it was the right or wrong thing to do, I'm just saying they voluntarily agreed to go along with his wishes, whether overtly stated or otherwise. Businesses have the power to do whatever they want as long at it is legal. And they certainly have the ability to go along with Kenny Shopsin's request *if they want to.*

[Bux]

And they certainly have the ability to go along with Kenny Shopsin's request *if they want to.*

Fat Guy wasn't writing a guide book and he wasn't censoring one. He job was to edit. It would strike me that he would be overstepping his bounds if he were to edit out recommendations on subjective grounds. I think his note was the proper way to handle it. Most of the comments here should be directed to the author who didn't ask for anyone's opinion.

[Fat Guy]

Businesses have the power to do whatever they want as long at it is legal.

It's not a question of power; it's a question of right or wrong, and in journalism there are standards of ethics that are more or less acknowledged by every serious media outlet. I believe Wilfrid is saying it would be affirmatively wrong to honor such a request.

[Fat Guy]

What would your definition of journalism be? Is writing or editing (I assume both fall under the same umbrella of process) a guidebook along the lines of Fodor's New York or Zagat (possibly two different answers) considered journalism?

Are you serious, Steven? What else would it be?

I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm trying to get you to spell it out for everybody's benefit. I don't think the average person -- and maybe not even the average eGullet user -- understands or necessarily acknowledges that a guidebook is journalism.

[Fat Guy]

Fat Guy wasn't writing a guide book and he wasn't censoring one. He job was to edit. It would strike me that he would be overstepping his bounds if he were to edit out recommendations on subjective grounds. I think his note was the proper way to handle it. Most of the comments here should be directed to the author who didn't ask for anyone's opinion.

Right, but I'm trying to steer this away from the specific facts of my two-bit job and Plotnicki's fondness for the idiosyncratic owners of Shopsin's and establish general principles.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But owners of newpapers kill stories for their friends all of the time. And people have press agents that kill stories all of the time because they have relationships with reporters. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with how the world works. Journalists aren't white as the virgin snow. They are a business and they often act like one.

For example, each week the New York Times decides to publish a review of a restaurant. How do that choose that restaurant? Do they choose the one that is the most interesting, the one that will attract the most readers, or the one that will appeal to the most readers in the demographic segment they want to appeal to so they can maximize their advertsising rate card? I thought the Times wasted good column space this week by devoting an entire review to Mark Joseph. My point not being to throw cold water on the NY Times or intimate anything, I'm just pointing to the types of compromises one makes juggling business concerns and ethics. There are more interesting restaurants to write about if aesthetics are the standard. What is so interesting about a copycat steak? So to me, the request by Shopsin's falls into this category which is why I think it's the publications choice whether to agree or not.

[Wilfrid]

Eveyone, I take it, is familiar with the magazine Time Out, whether in its London, New York or Paris edition. Guide books, of course, existed long before Time Out ever did - ask Baedeker - but Time Out was a pioneering version of what we have come to know as "what's on" or "listings" magazines. Time Out, of course, has many spin-offs - listings for restaurants, shops, services, etc, in various cities. And it has many competitors. When Time Out lists things, it often (but not always) includes a brief evaluative note, or even a full review.

You'll find guides, listings and reviews all over the web now, of course, and I expect many of you have used sites like City Search to find places to eat or shop, or entertainment events.

I have worked on a number of magazines which had what's on guides (or listings) as part of their life blood, as well as reviews and features. I have contributed to guide books which were spin-offs, although I've never edited one.

This is all part of being a journalist. Journalism can include news reporting, it can include the collation and presentation of factual information, it can include interviewing, reviewing and writing features. Often its a mix of several of these categories. Time Out includes all those things. I don't know the details of Steven's guide book, but I assume it's not utterly different in nature to the kinds of things I've discussed here; and if he 's writing or editing it, he's doing so as a journalist.

I can imagine certain, rare cases, where someone might ask a journalist not to write about something for serious personal reasons. But, as a general proposition, the idea that people get some kind of veto over whether journalists write about them or their lives or their businesses is one which is absolutely novel to me, and how it's taken up four pages here is astounding.

Just read Steve P.'s post: of course an editor can choose what stories to run with, and there are many factors, inclouding the disingenuous, which come into play. What beggars belief is that the idea that the subject of the story should get a veto.

[Ron Johnson]

Were he to actually list the place in the book, that would be the equivalent of the assault, and to do it vindictively would be the slander.

Wrong. Neither act meets the elements of either the criminal offense or tort that you have listed.

[GordonCooks]

Restaurant Review vs. Restaurant Guide

I feel a “review” is expert journalism. Journalism to me is the assimilation, organization, and conveyance of facts in the style of the journalist. I may choose to read a certain person's work because of one or all of the previous motives. Most of the time a review is weighted upon comparison of it’s peers.

I feel a “guide” is more journalism 101 – Factually correct snippets organized with proper grammar without opinion. Mostly, to transfer positive knowledge about a specific area or place of business.

Not to take anything away from people who write them but I feel they both have a purpose but a not a common one

[Fat Guy]

Do you think different ethical standards apply, though?