Critics need love too!

[judiu]

I had a brief gig reviewing restaurants. Brief because whenever I actually voiced a criticism, I was asked to rewrite it. Why would I be asked to do that? Because each of those restaurants were potential advertisers, and we didn't want to upset them.

Or a review that praises the atmosphere and the crowd, but never once mentions the food. That's code for GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

←

Newspapers or magazines with such a policy and journalists who agree to work under such conditions are known as "whores".

←

Perhaps you're being a little harsh on the journalist in question, Daniel? The journalist might simply be in the condition known as "broke". Happy Turkey Day!

[Carrot Top]

I do believe that any discussion of "whores" should always include those that lurk nearby. The johns and the pimps. A merry threesome in the game that never ends.

It also seems that it might be almost impossible to *really* discover who is a "whore" and who is not, in the world of critics. Certainly the johns (the readers?) might not have access to ways of finding out. And the pimps wear the same nice clothes as everyone else in this world. Nice and clean, with all hidden and tucked away that might not seem suitable for public knowledge.

I could be wrong here. Maybe there is an accurate way of measurement.

Karen (who dislikes the word "whore" based on its uh. . ."gender" component. Yeah. )

[Carrot Top]

Newspapers or magazines with such a policy and journalists who agree to work under such conditions are known as "whores".

←

Actually since what you are discussing seems to rather poor overall behavior, with a subtle intent underlying which infers that the readers are at the bottom of the barrel in terms of whom they have responsibility to (the advertisers being of paramount importance) I would call them "dickheads".

A subtle distinction based on which ethical thing one considers the worst, I guess.

Personally, to me, any whore is better than any dickhead. Regardless of the gender of the person being discussed.

Edited to add smilie. Heh.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Carrot Top (log)

[JasonZ]

In everything I do, I try to please all of the people all of the time. I can't stand criticism (especially of me) or controversy. Nobody ever complains to me or about me, but if I ever did receive or get wind of a letter of complaint I'd retract whatever I'd written and pursue another career. In particular, I never post in online discussions, because they're not safe.

←

You can't be serious...

←

Fat Guy's running for President ... and with 3.1 million votes already, he's ahead of most of the would-be candidates! If only politicians could be as forthright as food critics!

Edited December 2, 2006 by JasonZ (log)

[Reefpimp]

*bump-o*

And sometimes the reviewr's simply got a hardon for the restaraunt or chef who's beng reviewed. It's a thinly-veiled secret that an award-winning food journalist for a *major* Minnesota alternative weekly absolutely can't stand a certain pair of youngish St Paul restauranteurs, in good part because she dated one of them for a short period and he dumped her messily, publicly, and with great vigor. Lacking anything else to complain about in in her review of their Dr Seuss-themed seafood eatery on Grand Avenue, she griped about her server's makeup and the epistemological ramifications of it. Some people just will not be pleased, and are doomed to live lonely, sad, and empty lives.

[Mikeb19]

Sorry but I really can't respect or take most food critics out there seriously. I've cooked for plenty of critics at various restaurants (always a good review), but you can definitely tell that critics have biases...

The best restaurant I ever worked for (food-wise) always got lukewarm reviews. No one ever criticized the food or the service (they actually praised it), but somehow through artistic use of the english language, the reviews always ended up sounding rather negative.

I worked at another restaurant, we did great French food. The critics loved us as well, it seemed every week we'd get another rave review. Simply couldn't do wrong. Of course, some of the comments did make us wonder if the critics knew WTF they were talking about, but they were always happy (as were all our customers) so we weren't about to complain too much.

On the flipside, I worked (very briefly - I couldn't take it) for a rather well-known fine dining restaurant that, IMO, served very poor food. But you could tell by the reviews that the chef was buddies with just about every media type in town. Even if the meal was poor, the review would just be dressed up again through creative language - something that doesn't taste good is "creative" or "challenging", for example. This restaurant even won an award for a style of food it doesn't cook, which definitely raised a few eyebrows...

In my experience, critics are for the most part cronies, not to be taken seriously. I've eaten at some jokes that people call a restaurant, that were raved about by critics.

And my favourite restaurant, one that always serves great food, with great service (puts many fine dining restaurants to shame), is a tiny Chinese restaurant in the 'burbs that's never even listed in any publications (but is almost always full).

[rconnelly]

I take exceptiopn to the bias remark and crony comment.

I cannot show any bias or review and restaurant whee I have any affiliation.

them's the rules.

Of course there are periodicals that are advertiser driven, so perhaps that's the problem.

[Holly Moore]

There are many reasons beyond truthiness for a bad review.

The only bad review my restaurant ever received was when the critic for the Philadelphia Daily News supposedly reviewed my place but in reality reviewed Elaine Tait's very positive review of my restaurant, in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

One could put the reviews side by side and check off point by point the Daily News critic's reaction to Elaine's review. Elaine started with "Holly Moore's is a surprising restaurant for many reasons..." A week later, the Daily News guy started with something like, "There is nothing surprising about Holly Moore's..."

There is also the temptation for a reviewer just getting started to attempt to make a name for him/herself by panning a famous restaurant or simply panning a large percentage of restaurants. It is a proven way to build readership and to presume credibility.

Another theory is that many people who read reviews are akin to those who slow down at traffic accidents hoping to see dead bodies, or at least a lot of blood and gore. Want to attract readers, feed the "gawkers."

I have always maintained that column inches are far too valuable a commodity to squander by telling people where not to dine.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Holly Moore (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

Oh boy.....posted earlier before seeing a few more recent posts. I was being Mr Nice Guy when I first posted, suggesting that the obvious solution to critics who have an obvious bias is for their editors to fire them.

Then I saw the attackagainst critics in general, the charge of croni-ism in particular and now, no more nice guy.

First of all, any person who performs any act in public is open to criticism. That is the nature of being human. If anyone does not like that....don't perform in public!

Second. as the chef, the conductor of a symphony orchestra, the director of a film, the author of a book is performing a public act, so is the critic and that means that the critic too is open to criticism. Critics who deny that are simpletons.

Third, going on to what seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of some - the critic is nobody's enemy. The critic is fulfilling a social and artistic role no less intricate than that of the act that he/she is criticizing. In a way, an odd way, perhaps, the critic and the chef have not a parasitic relationship but a colleagial one, for they both have the same clients....the people who patronize the chef are those who read the critic.

Nor does this mean that criticism is necesssarily a negative term. Criticism is an analysis, hopefully well and intelligently written and good critics, by their nature are optimists, hoping that the meal, the week, the month will come, when all that they can write will be positive. The critic takes on his/her role because of a deep love for the field with which they are involved.

That there are incompetent critics in any field is as no less obvious than stating that there are chefs, authors, composers who grind out junk and think what they are turning out is brilliant. That does not mean, nor should it be extended to mean that all chefs or all critics are incompetent.

As to the hypotheses that there are not inches in a newspaper or magazine to waste on telling people where not to eat.....that may have been true in the USA until the 1950s. It was never true in Europe. Nor does it have any validity today. On a purely personal basis, I'm all for "good news" and love nothing better than writing a rave review about a restaurant. I gain little pleasure in writing negative or even at times devestating reviews. That, however is what my readers are entitled to.

Sheeh....this one did get my goat, didn't it???

By the way...that one of the truly great restaurant critics of the 20th century is a fairly regular poster on EGullet should say something.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Holly Moore]

Could not a restaurant reviewer define his mission as steering readers to good and great meals - especially in a major city? A typical reviewer writes upwards of 50 reviews in the course of a year. In New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, LA, San Francisco and the like, a reviewer has a wealth of good meal opportunities to relate - far more than 50. So I ask again - why waste column inches and his reader's time on bad reviews?

Reviewers mostly have a following that reads them every week. Readers would quickly come to understand that a reviewer not writing about a restaurant is as powerful a statement as a reviewer writing a bad review.

[Daniel Rogov]

Holly, Hi...

You say that not writing about a restaurant could be interpreted as synonymous with writing a negative view. Alas, not true, for despite our ability to publish weekly columns that still leaves a lot of good restaurants that might never be reviewed and thus interpreted by our silence as a place worthy only of a negative criticism.

In cities such as London, New York, Paris and others there are literally thousands of restaurants. Even by dining out twice daily (and that would be a terrible chore no matter how much one adores dining out) one could never get to visit, yet alone occasionally return to all of those restaurants.

A related part of the problem is that readers do want to be given clues about those restaurants that are not judged by the critic as up to par. Take the hypothetical case of a well known chef who opens a restaurant and fails; or of a restaurant that has been good, even excellent and then falls off in quality.

Few critics worth their proverbial salt enjoy writing negative reviews. It is, however, a necessary part of criticism if we are to fully serve our readers.

One possible solution - in the magazine section of my own newspapers (HaAretz and the Israeli edition of the International Herald Tribune) I am alloted four pages every week for a series of what i would call mini-crits of those restaurants throughout the country that I recommend. In such cases one can assume that a lack of mention means either that I have not visited a restaurant or that I do not recommend it.

[rconnelly]

Any hate mail I've received has not been articulate or clever.

Once in awhile someone will disagree with my view politely, but usually when someone writes to tell me I suck the writing is bad, bad, bad and the comments are pretty lame and rude.

One questioned my integrity and accused me of being malicious ( a dictionary would've served them well) another said I should get a job shoveling horseshit. And still another - his reasoning was it was because I worked for a free newspaper - that I had never eaten at a nice restaurant (although the place in question isn't on nice restuarant level).

Develop a thick skin and a great sense of humor.

And enjoy the job. People, as much as they complain, would kill for it!