New York Times Food Section

[russ parsons]

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.

←

not to be contentious (who me? and what the f*** do you mean you don't read the la times?), but that's not exactly what i said. i said it was very difficult to do balance the two. i do believe it can be done--you can write about food in a way that will appeal to the sophisticated cook, but won't be daunting to the novice. in fact, i think those are the stories the novices like the most (they feel like they're being addressed as equals).

[rich]

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.

←

I agree Megan, it's why I've petitioned the NY Times to move their chief restaurant critic to cover the restaurants of Fairbanks and Honolulu. Afterall, we NYers shouldn't be the only ones to benefit from those invaluable insights.

[bpearis]

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?

←

Never eaten a taco? Really? You must be rich. There are a lot of things wrong with Bittman's article (one of which is not telling people to buy hard shells, which aren't tacos in my book), but i'll quote Patalarga from the NY times message boards on the subject:

To start with, taco does not mean sandwich. Taco literally means 'wad'. Torta means sandwich. And it's all downhill from there.

"If you roll the tortilla, it’s a burrito, which appears to have been created in the American Southwest; if you layer food on top of it, it’s an enchilada"...no, and no. A burrito isn't rolled. And it's made with a flour tortilla. And an enchilada--oh, he's just so off base it's impossible to clarify.

That's just a start. But yes, if it gets people to try thighs over breasts... it's a good thing.

[cakewalk]

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?

←

Never eaten a taco? Really? You must be rich. There are a lot of things wrong with Bittman's article (one of which is not telling people to buy hard shells, which aren't tacos in my book), but i'll quote Patalarga from the NY times message boards on the subject:

To start with, taco does not mean sandwich. Taco literally means 'wad'. Torta means sandwich. And it's all downhill from there.

"If you roll the tortilla, it’s a burrito, which appears to have been created in the American Southwest; if you layer food on top of it, it’s an enchilada"...no, and no. A burrito isn't rolled. And it's made with a flour tortilla. And an enchilada--oh, he's just so off base it's impossible to clarify.

That's just a start. But yes, if it gets people to try thighs over breasts... it's a good thing.

←

Thanks. Oh that Ed Levine .... Not rich, I just attempt to keep kosher. Tacos seem to be very meat intensive, so I must learn to make my own. And I am disappointed to find out that Bittman has misled me! But I appreciate the heads-up, and I will now read about tacos on the NY Times message boards ... or maybe start my own thread here.

[AlexForbes]

what the f*** do you mean you don't read the la times?

Well, after reading all the praise here, I decided to investigate and I was very glad to find out that I can read it online for free. I've now added the LA times's food section to my weekly read.

i said it was very difficult to do balance the two. i do believe it can be done--you can write about food in a way that will appeal to the sophisticated cook, but won't be daunting to the novice. in fact, i think those are the stories the novices like the most (they feel like they're being addressed as equals).

Sorry if I twisted your words. My mistake. True: one CAN write something that will appeal to the sophisticated cook and the novice at once. In fact, the NYT pieces I mentioned as my recent favourites have that in common: they strike that balance. The day they came out I got emails from friends and work contacts in Brazil (which is where I'm from) asking me if I'd read them, wanting to know what I thought, etc. I guess that's when you know that a food piece has captivated attention: it generates buzz as far as Sao Paulo, among foodies and non-foodies alike. I guess that's what I aim for in my own writing as well: to say something relevant enough to get people interested, regardless of their level of food knowledge.

[ladycakeapril]

Although we all complain, the Post and the Times-both Times-have the best food sections out there in terms of general newspapers.

What they should do more of is use food as a basis for exploring more hard-hitting science and regulatory pieces. The articles dissecting confusing food labels, what does "sustainable" mean, school lunch quality, etc. are the ones that interest both food snobs and regular people who might just pick up the section on a whim.

[The Butler]

.....I'd just like to see more of what they do - more explorations of an obscure recipe, a seasonal specialty, that sort of thing. That's what interests me. I also like the New York neighbourhood profiles.

←

PURSLANE! Spieler!

The Butler enjoyed this very much and fills his pantry with the stuff each visit to the greengrocer.

Thanks to the NYTimes his omega 3 essential fatty acid level has skyrocketed and he has eaten some lovely salads.

[rich]

After reading today's NY Times Food Section (and I'm being very generous here), I mailed a copy of the SI Advance Food Section to the Times Food Editor(s). I was performing a public service (I hope) in showing the Times' powers what a real food section is like.

With the exception of Asimov's wine article on Mexican Zinfandel, today's food section (I continue my generosity) is the worst example of food journalism in the era of modern newspapers. J schools should re-print copies as an example of what not to do in food journalism.

However, I want to congratulate the NY Times for achieving a level of ineptitude that I didn't think was possible.

[emsny]

Rich - explain please. Perhaps you can post an analysis of the section and explain why you feel it is so bad.

[rich]

Rich - explain please. Perhaps you can post an analysis of the section and explain why you feel it is so bad.

←

I think I did when I started this topic, but briefly - the articles are drab, out of date and hold little interest for the general public or foodies. Today's restaurant reviews are uninspired, tired and rehashes of older reviews - with the obligatory smackdown and demotion. With only 52 reviews each year, why waste time on these places? Couldn't find any other restos to eat for free?

The ice cream article is something that should have appeared in May, not late August. It has the appearances of something that was written a while back, brought back from the morgue, re-edited and dropped in to fill space. I don't understand the purpose of the lead or the Fatty Crab Chef. The Chow.com article is self-serving and the $25 and under column reviews a place with a dubious rep at best.

The information page said little, the recipes were unimaginative and the photos boring.

Aside from that it was fine.

[Sneakeater]

I think that a re-review of the older secondary JGV places was a good idea. When places connected with such a celebrated chef-restauranteur slip so seriously (and I can personally attest that the "Satisfactory" rating for Mercer Kitchen is richly deserved), that has some news value. Especially when the Times food section has historically been characterized as a JGV booster.

And it's not just newsworthy re JGV. I think Bruni's lede put the issue right. Everybody wonders whether celebrity chef-restauranteurs can keep up the quality of their widespread empires. If JGV, the cream of the crop, can't, it makes you doubt it.

Edited August 16, 2006 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

I think that a re-review of the older secondary JGV places was a good idea.  When places connected with such a celebrated chef-restauranteur slip so seriously (and I can personally attest that the "Satisfactory" rating for Mercer Kitchen is richly deserved), that has some news value.  Especially when the Times food section has historically been characterized as a JGV booster.

And it's not just newsworthy re JGV.  I think Bruni's lede put the issue right.  Everybody wonders whether celebrity chef-restauranteurs can keep up the quality of their widespread empires.  If JGV, the cream of the crop, can't, it makes you doubt it.

←

Agreed SE, but anyone who eats out just occasionally already knew that. Hence the reason for the empty tables he described.

My point is why waste precious space on these places when so many other restos haven't been reviewed? If he wanted to do do a piece on celebrity chefs and how they handle older and/or secondary places, then it should have been done in a feature (as he has done before) and it would have been a good idea. But to waste a review - I don't think it was warranted.

[Sneakeater]

Good point.

[TAPrice]

With the caveat that I haven't read today's section (and that I like the Times food coverage in general), that Chow.com article is just badly timed.

Covering a website a week before it launches is odd. It shows a certain disconnect with the way people treat the internet. If a site is mentioned, you want to see it now.

[TAPrice]

Maybe I still need more coffee, but does this paragraph from the Chow.com article make any sense?

Cracking the consciousness of Web surfers will not be easy for chow.com. The prodding of the Food Network cable channel powers the Web site of the same name, and provides the profits for original shows for the Web. On Monday, for example, a Web show called “Dave Does’’ made its debut, in which the chef and author Dave Lieberman scopes out the latest food trends.

There are other sentences that make me think the copy desk was in the Hamptons.

The Chow.com article is clearly a filler piece. It reads like it was cribbed off a PR release. Maybe something else got spiked at the last minute and they had to publish it a week early?

Edit: The comma splice is killing me in that second sentence.

Edit again: I am glad that Ms. Goldman has filled her test kitchen with the dancers from the "Some Like It Hot" video. Those girls haven't had much work since the 80s.

Edited August 16, 2006 by TAPrice (log)

[Laurie Woolever]

Thank you! I thought the exact same thing when reading it this morning.

I did, however, enjoy the state/county fair piece, with a nice tie-in to the front page piece about declining attendance at such events.