Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[rich]

Whether I'm serious or reputable is an open question, but I'm a journalist and none of what you're saying is at all obvious to me. It's so un-obvious that I believe the exact opposite to be true. You can't judge a newspaper in 2007 by the standards of 1954.

←

Wasn't questioning your seriousness or reputation Steve, but I was in journalism for 25 years and it's very obvious to me.

I'm not judging by 1954 standards - I'm judging by the standards of journalistic ethics and that's the same no matter what year we're talking about. Granted what's acceptable in 2007 may not have been acceptable in 1954, but the ethics haven't changed - unless you're the NY Times.

The headlines, photos, placement and some of the copy is tabloid journalism and nothing you or anyone else says can dispute that - those are facts. Why don't you call Columbia J School and ask their opinion if you need more convincing or don't believe me?

Edited February 28, 2007 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

I'm judging by the standards of journalistic ethics and that's the same no matter what year we're talking about.

←

And which exact ethics rule says that a review of a steakhouse in a strip club can't be on Page 1 of the dining section?

[Dave H]

Dave, I think a system with a dozen categories makes sense for a niche publication targeted at a savvy audience, however it's too unwieldy for a general-audience newspaper. One of the main virtues of the star system is that it's simple -- that's part of what makes it so powerful. Ratings like "Two and a half stars in the New York Upper Middle Dining category!" just aren't going to appeal to a general audience, or even mean very much. So, while I agree with your characterization of the problem, I don't think a system even more baroque than Michelin's symbolic language is the solution.

Moreover, what you characterize as a three-category solution is really a two-category solution: starred restaurants and non-starred restaurants. The point of running a third review each week is not to create a new category of ratings. It is, rather, to account for the increased number of restaurants and to make sure both cheap eats and the middle range get sufficient coverage (also in pursuit of this goal there should be occasional group reviews of steakhouses and other genre restaurants, so as to free up space for more thorough reviewing of fine-dining restaurants). This introduces no complexity; it simplifies. And while it's not as exhaustive (or exhausting) as a dozen-category system, it addresses 90+ percent of the problem.

←

Perhaps that's right. And yes, Plotnicki's category names are too wonky for the average consumer--I wasn't suggesting using them, just showing an example of the idea in action. Thing is, the way I was envisioning it, the categories would sort of stay out of the way--they would be there if you wanted to keep track of what group a particular restaurant was being compared against, but the main point is to focus on the how-good part of the rating without losing the information conveyed by the which-category. Done right, it might simplify the system from the point of view of the average person. It's easy to forget, but someone who isn't already familiar with the way restaurants are rated isn't going to understand that there is such a thing as a "two star restaurant" and a "three star restaurant" irrespective of how good they actually are.

True, for ordinary people to surf to the NYT web site in search of a place for dinner and have to decide up front if they want "Upper Middle" or "Fish, Steak and Brasseries" is probably not going to work even if you do come up with more artful titles. But then I'm not sure their restaurant review archives work well for that sort of situation now. (Come to think of it...how do ordinary people decide what restaurant to try??)

[rich]

I'm judging by the standards of journalistic ethics and that's the same no matter what year we're talking about.

←

And which exact ethics rule says that a review of a steakhouse in a strip club can't be on Page 1 of the dining section?

←

No ethics at all if you're the NY Post. But if you're the Times and have reserved that spot for your 4-star reviews, then what's the motivation of placing a one-star review on page one? Is it to grab readers and sell more papers with gratuitous headlines? Or is it to proclaim a great new restaurant worthy of the highest praise?

Sex sells - I guess the NY Times has now decided to cash-in. Silly me, I thought they were above that. What's next? Does tomorrow's headline in the news section deal with the the body of Anna Nicole Smith?

[oakapple]

Thing is, the way I was envisioning it, the categories would sort of stay out of the way--they would be there if you wanted to keep track of what group a particular restaurant was being compared against, but the main point is to focus on the how-good part of the rating without losing the information conveyed by the which-category.

←

If you separate how-good from which-category, the implication is that the best restaurant of each kind gets four stars. I've no objection to a system that works that way, but it would instantly invalidate all of the existing ratings. For that reason, among others, I don't really see it happening.

New York Magazine's system of parallel star ratings for casual restaurants is the best solution I've seen that stays more-or-less within the traditional parameters (and hence, is something I could actually see the Times doing).

The $25-and-Under ceiling should be raised, and the editors should more rigorously enforce the boundaries. Frank Bruni, or whoever is in that job, should stick to fine dining. If that bores him (and I believe it does), he is in the wrong job.

I do think that separate ratings for food, service, and ambiance would help to clarify the basis for the ratings.

[oakapple]

Another problem is that the one and two-star categories have gotten somewhat corrupted.

Literally, two stars means "very good." When you read the text of Bruni's Le Cirque review, it doesn't really sound that good. The reason is that Le Cirque is (in Bruni's opinion) an under-performing three-star restaurant.

The system would actually be clearer if the only choices for Le Cirque were three or zero. If Le Cirque is charging three-star prices and can't sincerely be recommended at that level, it should get zero. Then, two stars really would mean "very good."

[Nathan]

1. since I read the Times online I don't really have the foggiest clue what's on the front page...if the Robert's steakhouse review is on the front page...that's just amusing. regardless, that's not Bruni's fault.

2. only a few weeks ago there was at least one complaint that Bruni was ignoring steakhouses.

3. I've heard it claimed for years that the steaks at Robert's were good. Bruni seems to have written a non-objectionable review here...comparing Robert's to other steakhouses and even noting the "mineral quality" of dry aged steaks....something which FG noted in the past that he had missed.

4. I really liked DaveH's post...I don't think multiple categories are possible though.

5. the problem with the expansion of the $25 and under category is that it doesn't do justice to places like Ssam Bar. they're competing with the best restaurants in the city and should be treated as such.

[oakapple]

Meanwhile if we look at the list of places Frank placed below what the Miller system would allow--Alto, the Modern Dining Room, Le Cirque, the Russian Tea Room, Gordan Ramsay, Kobe Club perhaps--it's not a very inspiring list. Many of these reviews prompted howls when they first hit, but my impression is that in the long term people's opinions of these restaurants have tended to fall into line with Bruni's.

←

I think you've misapprised the "Miller system." Just like Bruni, Miller would deliver zero, one, and two-star "smackdown" reviews to underperforming luxury restaurants.

The Modern has garnered a number of positive reviews from reputable journalists, and it also has a Michelin star. You could put together a credible case that Bruni got that one wrong. It's probably too soon to tell about Gordon Ramsay; it's been open for only three months. I agree with you about the others.

[Nathan]

Another problem is that the one and two-star categories have gotten somewhat corrupted.

Literally, two stars means "very good." When you read the text of Bruni's Le Cirque review, it doesn't really sound that good. The reason is that Le Cirque is (in Bruni's opinion) an under-performing three-star restaurant.

The system would actually be clearer if the only choices for Le Cirque were three or zero. If Le Cirque is charging three-star prices and can't sincerely be recommended at that level, it should get zero. Then, two stars really would mean "very good."

←

this I absolutely agree with. but it'll never happen. you'd have virtually every restauranteur in the city pulling a Chodorow.

[oakapple]

5.  the problem with the expansion of the $25 and under category is that it doesn't do justice to places like Ssam Bar.  they're competing with the best restaurants in the city and should be treated as such.

←

You don't design a rating system for one restaurant. I'm not convinced that Ssam Bar is so anomalous that it breaks the system.

I could make a long list of restaurants that are one-of-a-kind for different reasons. If you're going to have a rating system at all (and I know some people think we shouldn't), the exceptions just have to fit in somehow.

I actually think that Ssam Bar's excellence would be more apparent if it had four stars on the $25-and-under scale, instead of having two stars on the fine-dining scale.

[Sneakeater]

I was afraid he was going to give Robert's two stars, and then I would have to go on a tirade about how he holds what he views as inflated prices against places with "haute" pretensions, but not steakhouses in strip clubs. But he didn't. I think he got it exactly right.

[flinflon28]

I'm just outraged. I don't understand why this guy gets to keep his job. Can anyone offer a defense for this review? Is there a steak anywhere that's so sublime that I'd be willing to share my dining time and my table with Mahogany or Brianne?

←

Why would a sublime steak being served in those evirons be the fault of the reviewer?

[Nathan]

I'm just outraged. I don't understand why this guy gets to keep his job. Can anyone offer a defense for this review? Is there a steak anywhere that's so sublime that I'd be willing to share my dining time and my table with Mahogany or Brianne?

←

Why would a sublime steak being served in those evirons be the fault of the reviewer?

←

For those of us who know Sneakeater....it's safe to say that this comment was very tongue in cheek...

[Sneakeater]

Those of you who know Sneakeater probably also know that his name isn't Susan Giff.

[Nathan]

I need some coffee.

[flinflon28]

Those of you who know Sneakeater probably also know that his name isn't Susan Giff.

←

Isn't it great to laugh again, people???

[Sneakeater]

I'm not sure I agree with them, but Dave H's last two posts were just great.

Here's a point that's been discussed in the past but which I think warrants revisiting (yet again):

It's easy to forget, but someone who isn't already familiar with the way restaurants are rated isn't going to understand that there is such a thing as a "two star restaurant" and a "three star restaurant" irrespective of how good they actually are.

←

I've made that argument in the past (and Pan has made it very persuasively). Others have countered that we're wrong, and that the "average" reader is unpleasantly surprised when he or she goes to a place like Spicey & Tastey on the basis of a two-star review and finds someplace completey unprepossessing.

I still think that people like Pan, Dave H, and me are right about this. But it might be worth discussing some more.

(Come to think of it...how do ordinary people decide what restaurant to try??)

←

I wonder, too.

Apparently, they like places with lots of swords in the ceiling.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[sethd]

Actually, Brianna is an unusually beautiful woman. On a more servious note, Frank Bruni should lose his job. How can anyone take his reviews seriously if Roberts gets a one star rating from him. The service is so horrible there: the waiters are an embarrassment to their craft. THe wine markups are over 1000%. NIce, he constantly harps at the prices at 3 and 4 star establisments. (his hatchet job on ADNY comes to mind), but ignores the outrageous prices here.

[Sneakeater]

To be fair, he mentioned the prices (remember, he made that "cute" remark about their being "topless"). He could have made more of them. But since he only gave the place one star, in the face of what appeared to be extreme enthusiasm for the quality of the food (if I read him right, he was saying it's the best steak in the City -- which is really saying something), he obviously was downgrading it for something.

I actually did notice his lack of any discussion of the service. Because I was curious how the service was. So I thank you for stating that. I guess Bruni was too distracted to notice.

[Nathan]

To be fair, he mentioned the prices (remember, he made that "cute" remark about their being "topless").  He could have made more of them.  But since he only gave the place one star, in the face of what appeared to be extreme enthusiasm for the quality of the food (if I read him right, he was saying it's the best steak in the City -- which is really saying something), he obviously was downgrading it for something.

I actually did notice his lack of any discussion of the service.  Because I was curious how the service was.  So I thank you for stating that.  I guess Bruni was too distracted to notice.

←

reread the review, he said the waiters weren't great. but yeah, he basically gave it a star for having the best steak in the city, in his opinion. which if true, is a perfectly defensible rating. (indeed Eater called it exactly right)

[Fat Guy]

Right, he said:

Its atmosphere, granted, isn’t for everyone, and it has other shortcomings as well. The men who actually wait on the tables are less attentive and personable than the women who hover around them (and, it should be noted, vanish quickly if shooed away). The prices of some dishes, pumped up to reflect the entertainment on hand, might also be called topless.

[H. du Bois]

So shoot me, but I thought the review was funny. Didn't bother me that he was reviewing this place.

I don't remember, because I'm not OCD about the Times reviews, but haven't they reviewed Lucky Changs or Chez Justine (or La Nouvelle Justine, or whatever its name was)?

[Fat Guy]

I also think he did a good job -- it's one of his best-written pieces, because Bruni is an excellent writer, just not about food. I also think there was some extra humor and grace in his handling of the fact that he's gay (not relevant to reviewing in general, but germane here):

We were strangers to such pulchritudinous territory, less susceptible to the scenery than other men might be, more aroused by the side dishes than the sideshow

[sethd]

THe waiters are not just mediocre they are terrible. ALso, if he really thinks the steaks are the best in the city, he should go have a complete medical exam. I have eaten there on numerous occasions, (and probably more attuned to the surroundings then the reviewer), and think it at best rates a good review, no stars.

Oh, I not bothered that he reveiwed this restaurant. Just his rating which is ridiculous.

[Sneakeater]

OK, sorry I forgot that reference to the service.

To be simple-minded about it, Bruni gave two stars to Wolfgang's. He said in the Wolfgang's review that Luger's steak is better than Wolfgang's. He said in the Robert's review that Robert's steak is better than Luger's. So, if Robert's is getting one star less than Wolfgang's, it's obviously being docked for price and service (and maybe mainstream unapalatability).

(I haven't eaten at Robert's, so I'm not in a position to say whether I think he's right about the high quality of the steak there.)

Edited February 28, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)