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

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid - Just so my position is clear, I don't believe the restaurant should have a veto. And I think a publication should have the right to do whatever they want including going to print or not going to print. But in this instance I personally would decide not to print. But in another instance I might very well conclude to print. Point being that among the different things a publisher needs to balance, a request for privacy (not veto, request) is reasonable. And considering that publishers "compromise" what goes to print for numerous reasons, I don't see this compromise as being outside the realm of a reasonable request. And that is because I don't see the information as an absolute necessity for the diner.

[Fat Guy]

Those of you who are not familiar with basic ethics-in-journalism guidelines might want to check out the Society of Professional Journalists site:

https://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp

It is not gospel, and I doubt you'd find many journalists agreeing exactly with every tenet as stated in the SPJ guidelines. But here are what I consider to be the relevant portions for the purposes of this discussion:

Act Independently

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

That is of course limited by other provisions, for example:

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

   * Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

   * Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

   * Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

   * Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

   ...

To me it is the public/private distinction that ends this particular argument.

[tommy]

Wilfrd

Is there a reason you insist on misspelling wilfrid's name? I am formally asking you to stop.

i slay me.

[Wilfrid]

Well, thank you very much, Tommy. I am glad that someone on this site has a modicum of respect for me.

Actually, I have to apologize for inadvertently skipping earlier posts. Steve P.: Yes, of course, journalists agree not to publish things for all kinds of reasons, good and bad. The last thing I was suggesting was that a journalist is always obliged to print thre information he or she has, least of all in this case. Of course, Shaw's entitled to omit Shopsin.

What I was arguing with was Suzanne's view (if I got it right) which was that Shopsin was entitled to expect his veto to be effective, and that it was shameful (an assault, even) to ignore it.

[Fat Guy]

Of course, Shaw's entitled to omit Shopsin.

The strong view would hold that it would be an ethical transgression for me to omit it. Do you lean one way or the other?

[Wilfrid]

It might be an ethical transgression for to omit it if the only reason for doing so was Shopsin's attitude. But hardly a serious one, unless the guide book undertook to be "a complete guide to New York restaurants", or "a complete guide to new York restaurants owned by grouchy eccentrics".

Hey, how about a NY eGullet dinner at Kenny's joint?

[GordonCooks]

Do you think different ethical standards apply, though?

I don’t see it as an ethics question.

Facts are facts – you can only manipulate and take out of context so much. If I trust your writing – I’ll trust your opinion. I may not comprehend the type of guide but I can assure you that it’s not your fault if you someone has a bad dining experience. I rarely have a bad experience because I choose well. I know people what ALWAYS have a bad experience – who’s to blame? Don’t get wrapped up in people’s self serving sense of entitlement.

When going to a new city – How do you qualify your dining destinations?

Conversation with peers with first hand knowledge? Food & Wine periodical ? Review by local journalist ?

When going to a new city – How does my girlfriend’s brother qualify dining destinations ?

Can I wear sweats ? How far from the hotel ? Is their a Hard Rock sign ? Restaurant guide: Cheap eats listing ? If he put as much time into looking for quality food instead of strip clubs - he’d eat better.

–

I take dining very seriously, but after all…it’s only food.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"The strong view would hold that it would be an ethical transgression for me to omit it. Do you lean one way or the other?"

Fat Guy - But the strong view would hold that jaywalking is illegal. Though I'm sure you do it all the time. So what type of indisgression, if any, do you think there is by omitting Shopsin's from this guide? Does it breach a specific obligation to the reader such as "Every restaurant in NYC" or something like that? Or is it really an indisgression that doesn't have any real meaning or cause any harm? If I was writing a guide called "All the quirky places to eat in NYC," I can see that including it be imperative. But there are loads of circumstances where I can see leaving it out too.

[Wilfrid]

I thought everyone might be interested to read the CitySearch listing for Shopsin, right here. If you click on the read more reviews link, you can see what people thought. And you can add your own review, anonymously if you like, and you don't even need to have eaten there.

Now, at the risk of sounding American, can we all get real?