Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[rich]

See, that's the problem here, rich:  you can't get your mind out of the gutter.  [sMILEY]

←

...or out of the NY Times, which is the same thing.

PS - SE, you could be one of the best set-up men in the business - thanks.

Edited March 1, 2007 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

The pleasure is all mine.

[robyn]

I wanted to see what other food critics had said about Robert's Steakhouse. So I looked it up - and - lo and behold - the NYT did write up the place at length in 2003: Steak and Shake Takes on a Whole New Meaning.

Anyone have anything to say about repeating coverage of this restaurant? I found the first article a lot more tasteful - and informative. The writer was more interested in the food and the chef than the T&A.

Haven't read all the messages in this thread yet - so I apologize if someone has already pointed this out. Robyn

[Sneakeater]

That's pure journalism. An interview with the chef. It's not a review, and doesn't purport to be. (Which means, in part, that it doesn't have to convey the experience of actually being there.)

Edited March 1, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[oakapple]

Anyone have anything to say about repeating coverage of this restaurant?  I found the first article a lot more tasteful - and informative.  The writer was more interested in the food and the chef than the T&A.

←

The first writer is more knowledgeable about the subject matter than Frank Bruni. This is no surprise, because everyone in the food department is more knowledgeable than him. The first writer actually cares about Lang's background, because these things interest him. They do not interest Frank Bruni. This just shows that Frank Bruni is in the wrong job, which we knew already.

The fact that the Times covered the restaurant twice isn't unusual. There have been many times that the Times sends one writer to do a "preview piece" on a restaurant, and a critic later reviews it.

[Sneakeater]

Since sexual orientation and gender identity has become so important in this thread, it should be noted that Alex Witchel isn't a "he".

(She's also not really a food writer, but I'll anticipate oakapple in saying that if she cares more about food than the lead restaurant reviewer, you've really got to wonder.)

Edited March 1, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[robyn]

Since sexual orientation and gender identity has become so important in this thread, it should be noted that Alex Witchel isn't a "he".

(She's also not really a food writer, but I'll anticipate oakapple in saying that if she cares more about food than the lead restaurant reviewer, you've really got to wonder.)

←

For someone who's not a food writer - she writes an awful lot in the Dining Section of the NYT. Just look at the archives. And she's been around the New York Times for quite a while (and is also married to Frank Rich). Robyn

[Sneakeater]

Do a complete search and you'll see that she writes even more about things that aren't food. She's a features writer. (And married to Frank Rich.) (Although not when she started.)

Edited March 1, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[larrylee]

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.

←

For the record, I agree 100% with FG.

[rich]

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.

←

For the record, I agree 100% with FG.

←

I don't recall anyone saying the restaurant shouldn't have been reviewed.

[robyn]

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...

←

There are gay guys who love women - others who hate them - and some who don't care. Just like with straight guys. I've met at least a handful of haters whose names you'd recognize (they're not famous - but you'd recognize the names). As a woman - well you develop a sense of "gaydar" about this. And those guys make me feel very unwelcome - and very uncomfortable. Same way I feel in the company of straight men who dislike women.

I don't know about Bruni - because I don't know the guy personally - but - after reading a piece like this - I'd bet he has a profound sense of contempt for women. Because - instead of concentrating on the chef at this restaurant (who really does seem to be a serious chef with a great CV) - he spends almost his whole review putting down women. I compared his piece with the earlier NYT piece - and the contrast is rather striking.

And who knows what other emotional baggage he's carrying around? Maybe he hates good looking macho straight guys? And he takes it out in his reviews. Who can trust him at this point?

Remember - as you pointed out - he was the one who dragged the issue of his sexual orientation into his job. No one else but him. There are a large number of homosexuals who keep their sexuality to themselves and friends - not because of shame - but because they don't want to be known as a great gay woman writer - or a great gay male surgeon. They want to be judged on the basis of their skills - they want to be known simply as a great writer - or a great surgeon - not their sexual orientation. Lacking serious skills as a good critic (at least IMO) - it seems like Bruni is playing to the "cheap seats". Robyn

[Sneakeater]

I hate to be in the position of defending Bruni, whom I don't think is a good food critic, but to be fair to him, that's what he's done by and large.

I wrote earlier about that New York Magazine list of "power" gays and lesbians that he was on. The only reason I remember Bruni's being on it was that it was such a surprise. Everyone else listed from the Times was what you might call a "professional gay" -- people like Adam Moss, Ben Brantley, Anthony Tommassini, and Herbert Muschamp -- and then there was this guy who was a famously competent political reporter, who to all apperances hadn't made his sexual orientation an issue. Yet, he wasn't hiding it. I found that admirable. And remembered it.

As for this piece, though, how could a gay male write a review of a restaurant in a strip club and not deal with issues of his sexual orientation, at least implicitly? It wouldn't be honest.

[robyn]

The problem is the Times is trying desperately to compete with the internet, other papers and publications. It can do this by being a standard bearer for journalism or it can attempt to out do these other outlets by being more "snarky" and "clever" and hip.

It was once an "elite" publication because it set standards and adhered to them and people respected the paper. Now it is "elite" because it is taking on an "elitist" stance as a paper for those who are hip and in the know. Pinch has combined his mis guided multicultural we can change the world view with if you can't beat em join em and the results are scandal and embarrassment,  lost credibility and circulation. In the battle with National Inquirer and People and the the blogs it will ultimately lose.

Instead of challenging other news outlets with its quality it is descending to their level.

←

I've read your messages - and agree with them.

The problem is that the NYT will never be clever and hip - at least not clever and hip enough to satisfy those people who are looking for these things. I read an awful lot (serious and non-serious stuff) - but if I can't go to the NYT for serious journalism - I'll just drop it - because - even though I'm an upper middle class 60 year old woman (typical NYT reader demographics these days) - I'll never think of the NYT as among my top 10 reads for clever and hip when it comes to anything I like to keep track of (whether it's techno-gadgets or architecture). Even the Personal Journal in the WSJ is higher on this totem pole.

Note that unlike some people here who read the NYT on line for free - or at cheap New York prices - I pay about $400/year for outside New York home delivery - for 6 days a week - no Sunday paper. It would be about $600/year including the Sunday paper - but I don't have the time to slog through 5 pounds of newsprint on Sundays. Don't know how many people there are like me - but I suspect we are a substantial source of revenue for the company.

It's kind of a Walmart problem in reverse. When Walmart tried to upscale - the last couple of years - it didn't attract more upscale customers and it alienated its base. Robyn

[robyn]

I hate to be in the position of defending Bruni, whom I don't think is a good food critic, but to be fair to him, that's what he's done by and large.

I wrote earlier about that New York Magazine list of "power" gays and lesbians that he was on.  The only reason I remember Bruni's being on it was that it was such a surprise.  Everyone else listed from the Times was what you might call a "professional gay" -- people like Adam Moss, Ben Brantley, Anthony Tommassini, and Herbert Muschamp -- and then there was this guy who was a famously competent political reporter, who to all apperances hadn't made his sexual orientation an issue.  Yet, he wasn't hiding it.  I found that admirable.  And remembered it.

As for this piece, though, how could a gay male write a review of a restaurant in a strip club and not deal with issues of his sexual orientation, at least implicitly?  It wouldn't be honest.

←

Alex Witchel is a (presumably) straight married woman - and she managed to write about the place primarily in terms of the chef and the food. There was a nod to the fact that the place is a strip joint - but it wasn't the primary focus of the article. As it could have been. There aren't many women who are thrilled with venues like this - and she could have written a feminist diatribe instead of the piece she wrote. But she didn't.

As for Bruni being famously competent as a political reporter - I don't know the whole story - but I always wondered why the NYT pulled him out of the Rome bureau. Robyn

[rich]

As for this piece, though, how could a gay male write a review of a restaurant in a strip club and not deal with issues of his sexual orientation, at least implicitly?  It wouldn't be honest.

←

That's the issue I don't understand.

Are you suggesting it would have been dishonest for him not to bring up the subject of his sexuality? What does that have to do with reviewing a restaurant?

Aside from mentioning that it was in a strip joint (and I believe it was necessary and important to do so), why did he feel the need to continue down that road? Just by mentioning that fact, people would understand where it is and they could make their choice to visit or not. What else needed to be said in a restaurant review?

Being gay or straight should have no bearing whatsoever. If a straight male reviewer went, should he say he paid for three lap dances or one of the woman walked him to his car and performed oral sex?

Why was it necessary to impose his sexuality on the public? If I went to Chip N Dale's because they had a great steak should I tell everyone I was straight. I hope the answer would be no - it's none of their damn business.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

[rich]

...and one more point while the soapbox is still upright. If the Times' reviewer was a gay woman, would it be necessary for her to admit that and suggest she was attracted to some of the strippers?

That's a very "slippery slope" we're headed down if all that is really necessary in a restaurant review.

[oakapple]

As for this piece, though, how could a gay male write a review of a restaurant in a strip club and not deal with issues of his sexual orientation, at least implicitly?  It wouldn't be honest.

←

Although I don't have a big problem with how the review turned out, it was not his only option, or even his best option. He could have written a review about the food, and mentioned the strip club only in passing. The 90% of his readers who didn't know he was gay would have remained ignorant of that fact. His personal life doesn't have to come into his reviews (and usually doesn't).

If there wasn't enough to say about the food to fill a full article, he could have done a double-review. I mean, the review goes pretty far towards implying that Peter Luger is no longer the best steakhouse in town, but it is still carrying three stars from the Reichl era. (No other steakhouse has more than two.) Maybe a Luger/Robert's double review would have been a better use of space than the review he gave us.

As for Bruni being famously competent as a political reporter - I don't know the whole story - but I always wondered why the NYT pulled him out of the Rome bureau.  Robyn

←

He wrote a well respected book about the 2000 presidential election. My understanding is that Bruni wanted Grimes's job, and campaigned for it.

[Fat Guy]

If you say the restaurant is in a strip club, you're not adequately describing the experience of dining there. Strippers and other scantily clad women come to your table and hang out with you. You're expected to have them dance for you, you tip them, you buy them drinks, you make small talk, you get a massage. Failing to cover all that would make for a poor review, and it would make Bruni look ridiculous. I think Bruni handled this one just right.

I think it's also important to remember that Bruni is not writing for people who only care about food. He's not even writing for people who are going to eat at these restaurants. Heck, he's not even writing for people who live in town. He is, or believes he is, writing for people all over the world who want primarily to be entertained. He's on stage, putting on a show about the New York dining culture. He actually does a pretty good job of that. He just doesn't cover the food stuff particularly well.

[maggiethecat]

I think it's also important to remember that Bruni is not writing for people who only care about food. He's not even writing for people who are going to eat at these restaurants. Heck, he's not even writing for people who live in town. He is, or believes he is, writing for people all over the world who want primarily to be entertained. He's on stage, putting on a show about the New York dining culture. He actually does a pretty good job of that. He just doesn't cover the food stuff particularly well.

←

I agree with Steven here, trusting him with his comment about not covering food stuff that well. Hey, I'm just a provincial girl from Chicago, a city with amazing restaurants , a vibrant food culture and two dailies with food sections and food reviewers

who barely rise above student paper writing.

I think Bruni was spot on here, I don't give a care about his sexual oreintation, and I'm amazed that there's this long thread that exists mostly to say Bruni knows dick.

Entertaining people all over the world is laudable. And, um, apart from the good folks at the LA Times who's that much better than Bruni?

[Meredith380]

I think it's also important to remember that Bruni is not writing for people who only care about food. He's not even writing for people who are going to eat at these restaurants. Heck, he's not even writing for people who live in town. He is, or believes he is, writing for people all over the world who want primarily to be entertained. He's on stage, putting on a show about the New York dining culture. He actually does a pretty good job of that. He just doesn't cover the food stuff particularly well.

←

I agree with Steven here, trusting him with his comment about not covering food stuff that well. Hey, I'm just a provincial girl from Chicago, a city with amazing restaurants , a vibrant food culture and two dailies with food sections and food reviewers

who barely rise above student paper writing.

I think Bruni was spot on here, I don't give a care about his sexual oreintation, and I'm amazed that there's this long thread that exists mostly to say Bruni knows dick.

Entertaining people all over the world is laudable. And, um, apart from the good folks at the LA Times who's that much better than Bruni?

←

Well said. I loved this review and I think I love the outcry even more.

[Pan]

I don't understand the objection to the Penthouse Club review. Can somebody explain it? I thought Bruni did just about everything right. Should he have ignored the restaurant because some people are offended by operations like the Penthouse Club? No, I think he made the journalistically correct choice: he covered a restaurant that has food worthy of coverage, and he ridiculed its ridiculous non-food aspects.

←

I thought the review was funny, and that is all that I think needs to be said about it, except that to me, funny is good!

[Pan]

[...]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. To be fair, I have not been to most of them[...]

←

How can you have an opinion about restaurants you've never been to?

I'm stealing this idea from the way Steve Plotnicki has organized his reviews on his OAD blog. His somewhat quirky but serviceable categories for New York restaurants are:

[*]New York Casual Dining

[*]New York Creative and Bistro Cuisine

[*]New York Fish, Steak & Brasseries

[*]New York Formal Dining

[*]New York Formal Ethnic Dining

[*]New York Inexpensive Ethnic & Regional Dining

[*]New York Japanese Dining

[*]New York Upper Middle Dining[...]

←

I hate the "ethnic" categories. A restaurant is either good, bad, or mediocre, regardless of whether its cuisine represents the French, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Italian, or Mexican ethnicity (for example) or is some kind of fusion restaurant. We can surely develop some better categories than those if we need such categories in the first place!

Edited March 2, 2007 by Pan (log)

[Pan]

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.

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?

←

And my reaction? So what! It was FUNNY!

[Pan]

[...]I don't know about Bruni - because I don't know the guy personally - but - after reading a piece like this - I'd bet he has a profound sense of contempt for women.  Because - instead of concentrating on the chef at this restaurant (who really does seem to be a serious chef with a great CV) - he spends almost his whole review putting down women.[...]

←

I reacted to it very differently -- that he was making a joke out of the whole situation, not that he was putting down women and showing himself to be a misogynist.

[Pan]

As for this piece, though, how could a gay male write a review of a restaurant in a strip club and not deal with issues of his sexual orientation, at least implicitly?  It wouldn't be honest.

←

That's the issue I don't understand.

Are you suggesting it would have been dishonest for him not to bring up the subject of his sexuality? What does that have to do with reviewing a restaurant?[...]

←

Again: It's funny!

You seem to have a problem with him being out. You say "it's none of [our] damn business" and that he "impose[d] his sexuality on the public." Did he do anything sexual to you? Then how did he "impose" anything on you? If you feel hurt that he was open about his sexuality, you have remarkably sensitive feelings, and I don't think he needs to take them into account.