Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

TarteTatin · March 1, 2007

All this "Sturm und drang" over Frank Bruni's reviews are just making us laugh.

As regards whether or not the reviews are up to a particular "standard": well, perhaps they don't meet some folks elevated culinary standards, but they certainly give a "feel" for the restaurants reviewed.

That being said, we find them, for the most part, funny, worth reading, and mostly informative.

With his story telling and attention to the atmosphere, his writing helps us here in Philadelphia to fully experience the restaurant.

And as someone said, "After all, it's only grub."

robyn · March 1, 2007

There was some list in (I think) New York Magazine years ago -- before Bruni was the restaurant critic -- of powerful out gays and lesbians in New York. There was a sublist of people at the Times, and then political reporter Bruni was on it.
This was years ago.
(I want to emphasize that this wasn't a list outting people. It was a list of people who were already out. I think it was tied to Gay Pride Week or something.)
←
I think it's probably more accurate to say that although Bruni's orientation was common knowledge among those of us who were paying attention...as well as among those who keep tabs on that stuff in general (which I'm not one of), this is the first time it's essentially explicitly come up in a restaurant review written by Bruni (there have been hints before).
edit: The only reason that I can think of why any of this matters at all is that it does provide a foundation for the humor evinced in today's review....I suppose it is a necessary basis for the joke. As for the more important matter of the food at Robert's...Bruni's not alone in his opinion that the steaks are superb....I've heard that since it opened over three years ago. (heck, the best steakhouse for years in South Florida was in a strip club)
←

This is a pretty accurate description (in terms of the gay community). It is one thing to "come out" within the gay community - and another to do it in terms of the world in general in a place like the New York Times. Some people do it voluntarily - others like Mark Foley - involuntarily.

Actually - a lot of the jokes are "inside" gay community jokes - like the stuff about Mahogony (the movie - the song - Do You Know Where You're Going to - and Diana Ross' role in that movie being an iconic male gay community role - kind of like Judy Garland).

And all of this matters because if you get involved in any of the arts - or music - or design - it's important to know the players in the gay community. Who's on first - the big fights - the petty grievances. The bitchy bitchy gossip. Because the gay community generally sets the rules in these areas. Read the reviews of Cameron Carpenter - the most flamboyantly gay concert pipe organ player these days - in the NYT - bitchy bitchy. But he's great. I'll be seeing him for the third time in a couple of weeks. Anyway - I guess that Bruni is breaking ground in terms of explicitly bringing restaurant criticism within the realm of other "arty" areas.

Doesn't bother me a bit that he's gay. I'm involved enough in areas like art and design and music not to give sexual preference a second thought. It's just that this review - at least IMO - was a tacky waste of front page restaurant space. And insulting to women to boot (there are gay guys who truly like women and working with them - others who don't - my initial impression is that Bruni falls into the latter category). Like Gridskipper said - the guy doesn't have any taste at all. I will trust all my gay design friends to pick out things for my house - but I don't think I'd trust this guy to pick out a good restaurant that most people would enjoy. Too bad. Waste of a "coming out" party. Robyn

rich · March 1, 2007

I guess me and Ms. du Bois were the only ones who didn't know the NY Times chief restaurant critic was gay - and now that I know, who cares? And what difference does that make?

The focus of my post yesterday wasn't on him anyway, it was on the tabloid-type journalism of the NY Times. That issue has been virtually ignored, so I presume everyone agrees with me. :shock:

Since there are a lot of researchers out there, I have a few questions. My guess is Mr. Kim may be the best at answering, but if anyone knows the answers, please respond - thanks in advance.

1. When was the last time the NY Times ran a one-star review on page one of the dining section?

2. When was the last time such a story appeared in the top right column - the most important space in any newspaper? If the answer is none for one stars, how about the last time any starred restaurant received that revered spot.

3. When was the last time the NY Times ran a review with three sophomoric, high school, boys locker room-type headlines?

4. When was the last time the NY Times ran a review with a photo (color or otherwise) on the front page of a half-naked woman crawling on her knees?

5. When was the last time the NY Times ran a review with another photo (color or otherwise) on the inside of a half-naked woman leering over someone's shoulder at the dining table?

6. When was the last time the NY Times ran two photos with a one-star review? When was the last time they ran more than one photo with any review?

7. When was the last time the NY Times ran an on-line slideshow with several half-naked women and one photo of the food accompanying a resturant review?

And finally...

8. When was the last time the NY Times was considered a reputable newspaper by a. anyone in the public and b. anyone in the journalism field?

Bonus question -

Where was I when the National Enquirer purchased the NY Times?

Edited March 1, 2007 by rich (log)

Sneakeater · March 1, 2007

I guess me and Ms. du Bois were the only ones who didn't know the NY Times chief restaurant critic was gay - and now that I know, who cares? And what difference does that make?
←

It makes no difference whatsoever. But I think it's unnatural not to be interested in other people's sex lives.

Sneakeater · March 1, 2007

As for the rest of your questions, one might ask, when was the last time the New York Times reviewed a restaurant located in a strip club?

rich · March 1, 2007

I guess me and Ms. du Bois were the only ones who didn't know the NY Times chief restaurant critic was gay - and now that I know, who cares? And what difference does that make?
←
It makes no difference whatsoever. But I think it's unnatural not to be interested in other people's sex lives.
←

I'm not even interested in my own sex life, let alone that of a tabloid restaurant critic.

rich · March 1, 2007

As for the rest of your questions, one might ask, when was the last time the New York Times reviewed a restaurant located in a strip club?
←

That's implying this type of ceverage was generated by the the sex angle. I thought the NY Times claimed they were above that type of female exploitation - and left that for the NY Post and the National Enquirer.

oakapple · March 1, 2007

Since there are a lot of researchers out there, I have a few questions. My guess is Mr. Kim may be the best at answering, but if anyone knows the answers, please respond - thanks in advance.
←

Leonard does his research from the online archives, and the way they are structured, it would not be possible to answer all of your questions.

But frankly, even if every one of these things was unprecedented, the Times isn't fixed in amber. The newspaper industry evolves. The Dining Section has a new editor, and he wasn't hired to run it on auto-pilot.

I frankly don't give a damn what page it was on, how many photos were included, or the phrasing of the headlines. Frank Bruni has written many reviews that weren't primarily about the food. This one at least made the useful point (if you accept it as accurate) that in this unlikely place can be found some of the best steaks in NYC.

Fat Guy · March 1, 2007

I'm not sure what's meant by "makes a difference" but the fact that Bruni is gay is certainly relevant to the review in several ways. He introduces several elements of gay code, so he certainly seems to think it's relevant that he's gay. Also, you have at least one clueless blogger railing against Bruni's misogynism, which of course becomes a ludicrous claim when placed in context. Most interesting to me personally was that, as a straight guy (I think -- my wife accused me of being "so gay" just this morning), I've had nearly the same reactions as Bruni to "gentlemen's clubs." I find them more fascinating than titillating, more deserving of ridicule than awe. I have no idea how I'd have approached such a review, but I wish, if I'd have been the critic, that I'd have written almost exactly what Bruni wrote, minus the references that I didn't even understand until they were explained to me by a guy who owns an antique shop.

rich · March 1, 2007

But frankly, even if every one of these things was unprecedented, the Times isn't fixed in amber. The newspaper industry evolves. The Dining Section has a new editor, and he wasn't hired to run it on auto-pilot.
I frankly don't give a damn what page it was on, how many photos were included, or the phrasing of the headlines. Frank Bruni has written many reviews that weren't primarily about the food. This one at least made the useful point (if you accept it as accurate) that in this unlikely place can be found some of the best steaks in NYC.
←

But you should give a damn Marc.

Yes, the newspaper industry evolves and should evolve - but for the better. No one and I do mean no one who understands the industry can say this type of change in the Times is better.

If they wanted to better themselves, then hire reporters who report real stories and "don't make them up," hire critics who understand the industry they're covering.

If it's okay with you (this type of coverage) that's certainly your choice, but please don't try to persuade me this is better. The Times was once a truly great newspaper. That is no longer the case.

The death of a newspaper should be a sad occurrence for any educated person - and in no sense can it be considered a better thing.

Edited March 1, 2007 by rich (log)

nikkib · March 1, 2007

I'm not sure what's meant by "makes a difference" but the fact that Bruni is gay is certainly relevant to the review in several ways. He introduces several elements of gay code, so he certainly seems to think it's relevant that he's gay. Also, you have at least one clueless blogger railing against Bruni's misogynism, which of course becomes a ludicrous claim when placed in context. Most interesting to me personally was that, as a straight guy (I think -- my wife accused me of being "so gay" just this morning), I've had nearly the same reactions as Bruni to "gentlemen's clubs." I find them more fascinating than titillating, more deserving of ridicule than awe. I have no idea how I'd have approached such a review, but I wish, if I'd have been the critic, that I'd have written almost exactly what Bruni wrote, minus the references that I didn't even understand until they were explained to me by a guy who owns an antique shop.
←

Not wanting to get too political but are you suggesting a gay man can't be misogynistic?

rich · March 1, 2007

I'm not sure what's meant by "makes a difference" but the fact that Bruni is gay is certainly relevant to the review in several ways. He introduces several elements of gay code, so he certainly seems to think it's relevant that he's gay. Also, you have at least one clueless blogger railing against Bruni's misogynism, which of course becomes a ludicrous claim when placed in context. Most interesting to me personally was that, as a straight guy (I think -- my wife accused me of being "so gay" just this morning), I've had nearly the same reactions as Bruni to "gentlemen's clubs." I find them more fascinating than titillating, more deserving of ridicule than awe. I have no idea how I'd have approached such a review, but I wish, if I'd have been the critic, that I'd have written almost exactly what Bruni wrote, minus the references that I didn't even understand until they were explained to me by a guy who owns an antique shop.
←

No argument Steve, but it still doesn't matter. I didn't realize the Times restaurant critic was allowed to use inside jokes to the gay community in the middle of a restaurant review. I guess I missed that memo.

There must be a more suitable place for that discussion - but if he chose that venue and his editors allowed such, all the more power to both entities.

Edited March 1, 2007 by rich (log)

Fat Guy · March 1, 2007

Plenty of gay men are misogynistic, etc., but the wacky blogger was clearly assuming a different set of circumstances, for example:

Today’s NYT features a review by “Frank Bruni” of the restaurant at the Penthouse Executive club entitled: “Where Only the Salad Is Properly Dressed.” He claims to like the steak there, but the entire article is a platform for his sexist comedic stylings . . . .

nikkib · March 1, 2007

Plenty of gay men are misogynistic, etc., but the wacky blogger was clearly assuming a different set of circumstances, for example:
Today’s NYT features a review by “Frank Bruni” of the restaurant at the Penthouse Executive club entitled: “Where Only the Salad Is Properly Dressed.” He claims to like the steak there, but the entire article is a platform for his sexist comedic stylings . . . .
←

ahhh... :biggrin:

oakapple · March 1, 2007

But you should give a damn Marc.
←

Rich, I absolutely do give a damn that the current critic: A) Has very little understanding many important culinary genres; B) Is bored by, and is even hostile to, a large segment of the industry that he is supposed to cover; C) Lacks the insight, experience, or aptitude to really describe what is going on with the food; D) Is, at times, more interested in "reporting on the scene" than "writing about the food."

But steak is one of the genres he really does understand. If the Times adopted FG's suggestion of dividing up the dining spectrum among multiple critics, I would have no problem at all if the steakhouses were on Bruni's beat. He gets steakhouses. And according to him (as well as a lot of other folks), one of the best steakhouses happens to be in a strip club, so he reviewed it.

I think that restaurant dining is a form of entertainment. He's not reporting on the nuclear disarmament talks. It's a restaurant review, for crying out loud. I don't mind if the review is entertaining, as long as he manages, along the way, to actually cover the material (about, you know, the food) that he is supposed to cover. In this review, he basically did.

Although it's a titillating story, no question about it, what I expect from the Times is accuracy. It is possible to be accurate and responsibile, but also entertaining. That's how the Times is different than the National Enquirer, which is entertaining, and that's about all.

Edited March 1, 2007 by oakapple (log)

Fat Guy · March 1, 2007

Frank Bruni didn't open a steakhouse in a strip club. He's a journalist who reviews restaurants. If someone opens a steakhouse in a strip club, you can either ignore it or review it. Given that the chef worked at Daniel, Le Cirque, et al., and is also a competitive barbecue champion (and also happened to be the roommate of my best friend in law school), and that there seems to be an ambitious (by the standards of steakhouses) culinary program in place, reviewing it seems to have been the journalistically responsible move.

Then the question becomes the manner of coverage. Rich, I think you overestimate the extent to which anything written about a strip club can constitute sensationalism anymore. Strip clubs are so mainstream at this point that they're barely even worth noting. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't consider it the slightest bit inappropriate to speak of these things in mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers.

Moreover, Bruni's approach -- intellectual, dry, funny -- is exactly what I'd expect of someone writing in the New York Times or another elite publication. Indeed, when I first read it, it came across to me like a New Yorker piece in attitude and use of various extremely dry sarcastic techniques. Bruni actually writes at the New Yorker level (old New Yorker, before the bottom fell out), just not very often when he's writing about food. The captions, too, are great.

And the photos? Come on. They're as tasteful as the subject matter allows. You'll find far more erotic, titillating, provocative photography at most any gallery these days.

So that leaves positioning and exposure. This just doesn't seem scandalous to me. It's a great story. It deserves exposure. It's not an attempt to create scandal, it's not muckraking, it's not lurid or vulgar. Yes, it's a step removed from "In U.S. Overtures to Foes, New Respect for Pragmatism," but it's hardly "Headless Body in Topless Bar."

Nathan · March 1, 2007

fwiw, the Penthouse Club has been the site of more than one art-world party or event in the last couple years. It has a rather different status in the city's social scene than say Scores (I'd be flabbergasted if there was a prostitution bust at the PC).

as for sensationalism and luridness....Rich, the Voice covered the Terry Richardson opening a couple years ago with an entire article...which is just sick.

rich · March 1, 2007

But you should give a damn Marc.
←
Rich, I absolutely do give a damn that the current critic: A) Has very little understanding many important culinary genres; B) Is bored by, and is even hostile to, a large segment of the industry that he is supposed to cover; C) Lacks the insight, experience, or aptitude to really describe what is going on with the food; D) Is, at times, more interested in "reporting on the scene" than "writing about the food."
But steak is one of the genres he really does understand. If the Times adopted FG's suggestion of dividing up the dining spectrum among multiple critics, I would have no problem at all if the steakhouses were on Bruni's beat. He gets steakhouses. And according to him (as well as a lot of other folks), one of the best steakhouses happens to be in a strip club, so he reviewed it.
I think that restaurant dining is a form of entertainment. He's not reporting on the nuclear disarmament talks. It's a restaurant review, for crying out loud. I don't mind if the review is entertaining, as long as he manages, along the way, to actually cover the material (about, you know, the food) that he is supposed to cover. In this review, he basically did.
Although it's a titillating story, no question about it, what I expect from the Times is accuracy. It is possible to be accurate and responsibile, but also entertaining. That's how the Times is different than the National Enquirer, which is entertaining, and that's about all.
←

I guess I'm not making myself clear Marc.

I don't have a problem with the review with the minor exception of some sophomoric references, but that's to be expected from the current reviewer.

My problem is the manner in which the Times chose to promote it (and that has nothing to do with the critic).

There's nothing wrong with the Times as a whole being more entertaining. But if it needs to revert to the oldest ploy in the world to accomplish it, that speaks volumes about the creativity level of the current editorial staff.

The NY Post learned long ago that sex sells. If that's the business the NY Times wants to enter, it's their choice. But don't count me as a supporter.

Nathan · March 1, 2007

Here's the thing...none of this was about sex.

JohnL · March 1, 2007

The Times continues to lose circulation.

It continues to be relevant as a paper of record.

This is clearly a result of the multicultural mentality of Pinch (and Keller).

Professional journalism went out the window long ago in favor of politics and lifestyle and race--the paper, once an observer with a slightly left liberal political bent-- has become an advocate a cheerleader and a promoter.

A restaurant reviewer's political views or sexual orientation has no place in a professional review for a "mainstream" newspaper of record.

For example reviewing a restaurant from a political viewpoint--say Democrat--would be acceptable in a publication that declares itself a "liberal publication" say the New Republic or for Conservative perspective--the Weekly Standard.

What the Times does not realize, and what I suspect is at least partly to blame for declining circulation--is that those who want or appreciate a gay perspective in restaurant reviewing have places to go--the rest of the world who, whether straight or gay, want restaurant reviews according to professional journalistic standards--based upon criteria like food, decor, and value--from a reviewer who understands these criteria and upholds standards from a perspective of love of food and dining out, a knowledge of and respect for the history and experience in dining out as well as how dishes are prepared etc.

The whole gay perspective gets in the way. What is clever, bitchy and funny in a Gay paper or a general entertainment publication is obnoxious and out of place in the Times.

Now, every Times restaurant review will be read with a jaundiced eye--instead of insight into the establishment being reviewed, people will "look" for the witty inside jokes wondering if they "get" them or are missing anything. The criticism will be assumed to be based on criteria like is the place hip for New York gays not New York diners (from casual eaters out to gourmets). In effect, the reviews are less about the restaurant and more about gayness and Bruni, personal diary stuff not professional journalism.

Bruni is now a "gay restaurant reviewer" instead of just a professional critic a journalist. The great paradox of political correctness is that true equality means acceptance into a mainstream and respect for a person based on their skills and talents not their politics or sexuality.

The reviews will cease to matter for most people--the circulation will continue its downward slide and a once great paper will eventually hit bottom.

Edited March 1, 2007 by JohnL (log)

Fat Guy · March 1, 2007

It's too bad the name "Strip House" was already taken.

flinflon28 · March 1, 2007

Frank Bruni didn't open a steakhouse in a strip club. He's a journalist who reviews restaurants. If someone opens a steakhouse in a strip club, you can either ignore it or review it. Given that the chef worked at Daniel, Le Cirque, et al., and is also a competitive barbecue champion (and also happened to be the roommate of my best friend in law school), and that there seems to be an ambitious (by the standards of steakhouses) culinary program in place, reviewing it seems to have been the journalistically responsible move.
Then the question becomes the manner of coverage. Rich, I think you overestimate the extent to which anything written about a strip club can constitute sensationalism anymore. Strip clubs are so mainstream at this point that they're barely even worth noting. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't consider it the slightest bit inappropriate to speak of these things in mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers.
Moreover, Bruni's approach -- intellectual, dry, funny -- is exactly what I'd expect of someone writing in the New York Times or another elite publication. Indeed, when I first read it, it came across to me like a New Yorker piece in attitude and use of various extremely dry sarcastic techniques. Bruni actually writes at the New Yorker level (old New Yorker, before the bottom fell out), just not very often when he's writing about food. The captions, too, are great.
And the photos? Come on. They're as tasteful as the subject matter allows. You'll find far more erotic, titillating, provocative photography at most any gallery these days.
So that leaves positioning and exposure. This just doesn't seem scandalous to me. It's a great story. It deserves exposure. It's not an attempt to create scandal, it's not muckraking, it's not lurid or vulgar. Yes, it's a step removed from "In U.S. Overtures to Foes, New Respect for Pragmatism," but it's hardly "Headless Body in Topless Bar."
←

Well written post. Sarcastic wit and a bit of snark was also found in the Times write up of Anna Nicole Smith recently:

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Anna Nicole Smith, former pinup, actress and television personality who was famous for being famous, sporadically rich and chronically litigious, dies at age 39

Also in an article about the rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard a few years ago in which the refer to him as "Mr. Bastard". Unfortunatley I can't track that one down.

Nathan · March 1, 2007

The Times continues to lose circulation.
It continues to be relevant as a paper of record.
This is clearly a result of the multicultural mentality of Pinch (and Keller).
Professional journalism went out the window long ago in favor of politics and lifestyle and race--the paper, once an observer with a slightly left liberal political bent-- has become an advocate a cheerleader and a promoter.
A restaurant reviewer's political views or sexual orientation has no place in a professional review for a "mainstream" newspaper of record.
For example reviewing a restaurant from a political viewpoint--say Democrat--would be acceptable in a publication that declares itself a "liberal publication" say the New Republic or for Conservative perspective--the Weekly Standard.
What the Times does not realize, and what I suspect is at least partly to blame for declining circulation--is that those who want or appreciate a gay perspective in restaurant reviewing have places to go--the rest of the world who, whether straight or gay, want restaurant reviews according to professional journalistic standards--based upon criteria like food, decor, and value--from a reviewer who understands these criteria and upholds standards from a perspective of love of food and dining out, a knowledge of and respect for the history and experience in dining out as well as how dishes are prepared etc.
The whole gay perspective gets in the way. What is clever, bitchy and funny in a Gay paper or a general entertainment publication is obnoxious and out of place in the Times.
Now, every Times restaurant review will be read with a jaundiced eye--instead of insight into the establishment being reviewed, people will "look" for the witty inside jokes wondering if they "get" them or are missing anything. The criticism will be assumed to be based on criteria like is the place hip for New York gays not New York diners (from casual eaters out to gourmets). In effect, the reviews are less about the restaurant and more about gayness and Bruni, personal diary stuff not professional journalism.
Bruni is now a "gay restaurant reviewer" instead of just a professional critic a journalist. The great paradox of political correctness is that true equality means acceptance into a mainstream and respect for a person based on their skills and talents not their politics or sexuality.
The reviews will cease to matter for most people--the circulation will continue its downward slide and a once great paper will eventually hit bottom.
←

You're taking this a little seriously don't you think?

(yes, the Times' overall bent has changed since the days of the late Abe Rosenthal...but I don't think that has anything to do with the restaurant column)...

I agree that the next time Bruni reviews a steakhouse located inside a strip club that people will be perusing it for inside references. But until that happens...I don't think this will change a single thing as to how the vast majority of us breeders read his reviews.

rich · March 1, 2007

Frank Bruni didn't open a steakhouse in a strip club. He's a journalist who reviews restaurants. If someone opens a steakhouse in a strip club, you can either ignore it or review it. Given that the chef worked at Daniel, Le Cirque, et al., and is also a competitive barbecue champion (and also happened to be the roommate of my best friend in law school), and that there seems to be an ambitious (by the standards of steakhouses) culinary program in place, reviewing it seems to have been the journalistically responsible move.
Then the question becomes the manner of coverage. Rich, I think you overestimate the extent to which anything written about a strip club can constitute sensationalism anymore. Strip clubs are so mainstream at this point that they're barely even worth noting. Maybe it's a generational thing, but I don't consider it the slightest bit inappropriate to speak of these things in mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers.
Moreover, Bruni's approach -- intellectual, dry, funny -- is exactly what I'd expect of someone writing in the New York Times or another elite publication. Indeed, when I first read it, it came across to me like a New Yorker piece in attitude and use of various extremely dry sarcastic techniques. Bruni actually writes at the New Yorker level (old New Yorker, before the bottom fell out), just not very often when he's writing about food. The captions, too, are great.
And the photos? Come on. They're as tasteful as the subject matter allows. You'll find far more erotic, titillating, provocative photography at most any gallery these days.
So that leaves positioning and exposure. This just doesn't seem scandalous to me. It's a great story. It deserves exposure. It's not an attempt to create scandal, it's not muckraking, it's not lurid or vulgar. Yes, it's a step removed from "In U.S. Overtures to Foes, New Respect for Pragmatism," but it's hardly "Headless Body in Topless Bar."
←

But why give that restaurant review that treatment unless they were selling the sex angle?

Steve, you can sugarcoat this all you want, but the fact remains the NY Times treated this review different than any other. So the question is why?

It's not like this is a new place. It's been around for a couple of years. So why this treatment now? Why does it need this "exposure" now, as you so aptly phrased it?

Of course the photos were relatively harmless as was the slide show. But they used them to sell the story. Was this so the reviewer could get his inside jokes across? What's next - a candid shot of a Hooters waitress walking away from his table?

There's a substantial amount of nudity in the theater, yet the Times never publishes such photos or a slide show with the review.

Lets be real - this was attempt to be more like the NY Post and National Enquirer and if that's the road the paper wants to travel, they'll find it littered with slain dragons.

Edited March 1, 2007 by rich (log)