New York Times Food Section

[Miami Danny]

If it ain't on the net, it don't matter.

And, there are plenty of online websites that do NY restaurant critique better than The Times ever has, or ever could.

←

I'm pretty sure the Times is on the 'net', whatever that is.

[Gifted Gourmet]

For my money, the Los Angeles Times's food section is the only one to give it a run for its money.

←

No truer words were ever said!

Thanks to people like russ parsons ...

[maryeats]

I'm a fan of the NYT Restaurant critics, And of the WPost's as well, but I am really getting tired of the lifestyle pieces that either offer no tangible relevance to my lifestyle or fail to inform, instruct or inspire me.

For example, this week the Times ran a story about Naeng Myeon, a cold Korean soup. I live in Korea, I love Naeng Myeon. I was waiting for a restaurant name, location, or recipe, something other than a 600-word memoir. But I got nothing.

Matt and Ted Lee do a great job of inspiring readers to get out there and cook and eat, but these other lifestyle food articles are insipid.

Inspire, inform, instruct or stop.

[Mimi Sheraton]

Just to clear up two points: to SMW..you say since the Times started a separate food section...It began in 1976 and was called Living...despite the name, it was all food except for Jane Brody's health column. Only the name and some features were changed when it became Dining. Do you mean pre-1976 when Food it was a Thursday page?

To John L..Many thanks for the generous words. As it happens I now write free-lance for the Times Travel and Weekend sections, but, by my choice, I specifically do not write for the food section, Dining.

[russ parsons]

thanks a lot for the kind words, both for our section and for me. and i know that my cousins across the continent don't need me to defend them (nor would i in every case), but i do want to repeat that editing a newspaper food section is a pretty tough tightrope to walk. unlike food magazines (and, certainly, websites), newspaper food sections are specialty publications that run in the context of general interest publications. this means that we need to satisfy readers who are intensely interested and well-versed on the subject, but also those who may never have cooked anything in their lives, but whose wife just happens to have claimed the sports section first on this particular wednesday morning. it's a tricky balance and i don't know of anyone who gets it right all the time, though some have a higher batting average than others.

That said, as someone who covers food and ag a lot, i will say that i found kim severson's piece on the greenmarket situation really interesting. she's a very good reporter.

[rich]

That said, as someone who covers food and ag a lot, i will say that i found kim severson's piece on the greenmarket situation really interesting. she's a very good reporter.

←

I agree Russ, the writing was fine (as I mentioned upthread that is not the problem). While the Greenmarket piece was well written, how frequently will the NY Times run the same type of story?? - I think Green Market stories appear every other week. It seems they have a morgue full of them and dig one out every time space needs to be filled. This time they added more inches with an "exciting" map.

Defending the NY Times food section as it now exists is like defending Saddam Hussein - there's no telling what type of indiscernible raving we'll find next week from the editors.

[Sneakeater]

When knowing where to buy a freakin Jamaican Patty in Flushing started you drooling? 

←

Hey that wasn't Flushing. That was Prospect Heights!

[russ parsons]

Defending the NY Times food section as it now exists is like defending Saddam Hussein - there's no telling what type of indiscernible raving we'll find next week from the editors.

←

i'm going to assume you're being ironic about all this indiscernible raving, right?

[rich]

Defending the NY Times food section as it now exists is like defending Saddam Hussein - there's no telling what type of indiscernible raving we'll find next week from the editors.

←

i'm going to assume you're being ironic about all this indiscernible raving, right?

←

Yes!!

[Shannon_Elise]

No matter if it has gone down (stayed stagnant or gone up), the New York Times food section is better than anything in my area of the country. Our local daily's food section is always filled with nothing but syndicated articles and columns, an inane take out review (more a menu listing) and recipes that contain cake mix and cream of....soup. Many sections don't even acknowledge that there is a contingent of people that *surprise* like to take the time to cook, even if it just for themselves. And as much as Bruni (and that has an entire thread devoted to it) annoys me sometimes, he is still a million times better than the menu-listing reviews done here in central Ohio.

I am probably also a bit biased because this week I loved the Austrian wines article and I would love to know where to get a great Jamacian Patty (too bad I live too far to get any). All the "so called Carribean" places in Columbus serve just Jerk Chicken - you'd think that's all that people make in Jamaica - and not even good Jerk Chicken at that.

Although for me at least, thank goodness for the Internet having articles online. It is only that way that I get to read Russ Parson's stuff. I printed out a recent thing he did on aioli to pass around my office (a community weekly paper) as an example of great writing.

Of course, I've only been reading the NYT Dining Out section for about 7 or 8 years, so maybe I don't have the right comparison. I will stop reading, however, if I ever see Sandra Lee in anything other than an ad. I had to cut her out of the Hampton Food and Wine fest ad this week, just because I can't stand her.

Shannon

[rich]

If anyone is interested in real food journalism, pick up a copy of August's Gourmet and read the supplement. Culinary journalism at its finest.

Congratulations to Ruth Reichel, her staff and the writers.

It proves you can be creative writing about food.

[rancho_gordo]

newspaper food sections are specialty publications that run in the context of general interest publications. this means that we need to satisfy readers who are intensely interested and well-versed on the subject, but also those who may never have cooked anything in their lives

←

It's too bad it can't be more like the Sports section!

I'm not sure what is so bad about the NYTimes food section, even after reading this thread. Some articles are better than others. Surprise! There are still interesting articles (along with the fluff) and I think it's always worth checking out. The one thing I find odd is all the coverage on the SF Bay Area. I don't mind it, since I live here, but I think I might if I lived in NY.

[PDC]

←

[LindaK]

You meen all-anti-Yankees all the time? Remember, the NYT owns a chunk of the Red Sox and it shows in their coverage....

They own a chunk of the Boston Globe, too, and it shows in their respective food coverage as well. i read both newspapers daily and the overlap in their food sections--both the weekly Wednesday section and the Sunday magazine--is so predictable as to be commonplace. This past Sunday, for example, both magazines' food sections featured gazpacho. The greenmarket theme featured in both of last weeks food sections. Occasionally the Globe has to wait a week so the Times can run the story first, but it happens regularly. It happens in other sections too (travel especially--northern Italy last Sunday, for example) but you get the point. Thank you, corporate mergers...

Interestingly, they don't run exactly the same article. Although I haven't kept careful track (maybe I should?), it's always "local" reporters writing on the same topic. I suspect there's some focus group research guiding the choice of topic and it gets assigned or contracted out accordingly. Even so, IMHO this type of homogenization really detracts from a newpaper's ability to reflect local culinary strengths, never mind reporting the news.

[rancho_gordo]

You meen all-anti-Yankees all the time? Remember, the NYT owns a chunk of the Red Sox and it shows in their coverage....

Sorry for the topic drift.

←

No. I mean that it's too bad the food section isn't daily and not worry about beginners.

[eatrustic]

I have been an avid NYT Wednesday Food Section reader for many years and the sad fact is that even on it's most banal days (and there have been some of late) it is head and shoulders above 95% of Food Sections in N. America. (I also have great appreciation for the L.A. Times Food Section- online.)

The section in my local paper -The Vancouver Sun - B.C. - (a region bursting with interesting, food and wine worthy news items) is an embarrasment like so many other food sections across the continent.

My question is why is this such a common problem? The food crowd, although varied, has for the most part a relatively large disposable income and as such should attract the advertisors and budget necessary to give us (a least once a week) interesting and varied food and wine coverage.

If I'm willing to go out of my way to reserve my copy of the NYT every week from my local news stand then there are surely a sufficient number of local foodies who will drop .75 for the local paper and support it's advertisors.

[PDC]

You meen all-anti-Yankees all the time? Remember, the NYT owns a chunk of the Red Sox and it shows in their coverage....

They own a chunk of the Boston Globe, too, and it shows in their respective food coverage as well. i read both newspapers daily and the overlap in their food sections--both the weekly Wednesday section and the Sunday magazine--is so predictable as to be commonplace. This past Sunday, for example, both magazines' food sections featured gazpacho. The greenmarket theme featured in both of last weeks food sections. Occasionally the Globe has to wait a week so the Times can run the story first, but it happens regularly. It happens in other sections too (travel especially--northern Italy last Sunday, for example) but you get the point. Thank you, corporate mergers...

Interestingly, they don't run exactly the same article. Although I haven't kept careful track (maybe I should?), it's always "local" reporters writing on the same topic. I suspect there's some focus group research guiding the choice of topic and it gets assigned or contracted out accordingly. Even so, IMHO this type of homogenization really detracts from a newpaper's ability to reflect local culinary strengths, never mind reporting the news.

←

Interesting, I hadn't considered the content overlap. Rich noted the SI Advance food section at tje start of this thread; I wonder if that section is basically the Newark Star-Ledger's food section with SI restaurant reviews tossed in. I know the sports sections of the two papers used to be the same for the major league teams in all sports with the only differences being the local (i.e. high sohool and rec league) coverage.

[rich]

Rich noted the SI Advance food section at tje start of this thread; I wonder if that section is basically the Newark Star-Ledger's food section with SI restaurant reviews tossed in. 

←

Not at all. Since the Advance revamped its food section in April, it's very much local (SI and NYC) with some national and syndicated articles on various pages. The recipes are interesting and topical, the features are timely and they do an international section (my idea) every week.

The best part about the food section (it's normally eight pages) is it doesn't carry any restaurant reviews. The weekly restaurant review appears Friday within the news section along with a movie and/or theater review.

The Advance has been running a recipe contest for years and selects winners in about 10 categories and awards a "best of show" to the overall winner. All the recipes (or at least most) are then published in a separate 50-80 page supplement that is included within a Sunday edition.

They've had some reputible judges over the years - Sara Moulton was the head judge in last year's contest.

All in all the Advance is more of a "foodie" paper than most. How would they define this over on the foodie thread?

However, I must conclude by saying that food is about the only thing they do well, but it's worth the price of admission.

Edited July 25, 2006 by rich (log)

[AlexForbes]

Russ has a very good point. I'm assuming most of the above posts - specifically, the negative ones bashing the NYT Dining section - were written by foodies. Well, the NYT can't edit the Dining section with only foodies in mind - so naturally stories that might sound interesting and informative to someone who knows very little about food will strike foodies as déjà vu and superficial, or lacking information. And vice-versa.

To prove that this is just a matter of personal tastes, I should confess that I don't like it at all when valuable space on a newspaper page is taken up by a recipe, no matter how good it may be. I have too many other places to look to for recipes, such as Epicurious, Gourmet mag, Food and Wine, etc. What I consider a good story is not one about an obscure dish and its accompanying recipe, but one that includes solid reporting and that uncovers a new technique, trend or up-and-coming chef.

One of my recent favourites? "Under Pressure", Amanda Hesser's August 2005 story on sous vide cooking, published in the NYT magazine. Another? "Two Parts Vodka, one Twist Science", Peter Meehan's story on "molecular" drinks, published in the Dining section. I don't see many other papers or magazines doing this kind of reporting - but then again, I don't read the L.A. Times!

[bpearis]

I like Mark Bittman in general, but his feature article on tacos this week was a joke. Horribly inaccurate.

Edited July 28, 2006 by bpearis (log)

[tommy]

I like Mark Bittman in general, but his feature article on tacos this week was a joke. Horribly inaccurate.

←

if he convinced just one person to use chicken thighs instead of breasts, pork shoulder instead of whatever else people use, or skirt steak, then i'll forgive him. but when pork shoulder gets over 1.50/lb because everyone's buying it, i'll hate him.

[ned]

if he convinced just one person to use chicken thighs instead of breasts, pork shoulder instead of whatever else people use, or skirt steak, then i'll forgive him

←

RAH RAH RAH

Apparently the US ships TONS of chicken thighs to eastern europe because our people think they prefer chicken breasts. For shame.

Edited July 28, 2006 by ned (log)

[Jaymes]

I like Mark Bittman in general, but his feature article on tacos this week was a joke. Horribly inaccurate.

Yes, and he's taking quite a skewering on the NYT chat page. Wonder if he reads it.

[cakewalk]

I like Mark Bittman in general, but his feature article on tacos this week was a joke. Horribly inaccurate.

←

Okay, okay. So what's inaccurate about it? I never ate a taco, never mind made one, and I found that article interesting. I even bought some [packaged, forgive me] taco shells (from corn meal) so I can eventually get to it. So now I find out it's all wrong. Is there a "how to make a taco" thread? Is it time to start one?

[Megan Blocker]

The one thing I find odd is all the coverage on the SF Bay Area. I don't mind it, since I live here, but I think I might if I lived in NY.

←

Dunno...as a New Yorker, even I tend to think of the Times as a national publication with a local emphasis, rather than the other way around. Articles on food scenes in other parts of the country really interest me.