Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

rich · March 3, 2007

Totally and completely off-base Pan. I'm not offended, hurt or sensitive about his sexuality or have a problem with him being "out." His business, his call. But restaurant reviews are not the place to promote a personal agenda.[...]
←
I don't think he's promoting a personal agenda, just being funny!
←

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

rich · March 3, 2007

I just got off the phone with a PR person from PL who has been reading this thread with interest.

She told me PL was very upset by the recent Times review, which indicated Robert's steak were better. So based on the review, PL will respond in kind. Beginning April 1, there will be a change in customer service at the Brooklyn PL (the feeling was the Long Island branch is too family-friendly).

PL has made an exclusive deal with Playboy and Playgirl (Penthouse's biggest rival) to provide models for the customer's entertainment. Both the male and female models will be asked to perform in the back room of the restaurant and customers wishing to participate will be charged an extra $50 for their beefsteak. Since this is multi-gender entertainment, PL is hoping to attract more couples then now visit Robert's.

In addition, all waiters will be wearing g-strings as part of their uniform. Anyone (either gender) wishing to see or touch the string will pay a $25 surcharge that will be shown on their bill as a "service charge." As a special, each Wednesday at 10pm, five waiters will be chosen at random to work the rest of the evening clad in just the aforementioned g-string. Also, PL has hired a new host and hostess that will walk everyone to their table and offer a free cocktail to anyone odering the special of the evening. These full-time employees will be clad in see-through tunics and nothing else.

One of the problems that needed to be resolved was the wooden tables. Most of the models complained of splinters during a rehersal last evening (after closing time). So PL hired professional "buffers" to smooth the worker's environment.

Further, PL is still negotiating with the NY Times for a full review and exclusive rights to an interactive slideshow that will include private phone numbers of the models based on the viewer's credit rating. There is also talk of the Times putting mpeg movies on its site.

Finally, PL is speaking with Victoria's Secret to develop a line of clothing featuring the new uniforms - from the tunics to the g-strings and more. It is hoped the line will be featured in the NY Times fashion section.

All of this will bring new meaning to the term "dinner and a show," according to PL.

PS - I also heard the Times is negotiating with CBS (their polling partner) to turn the weekly restaurant review into a sitcom - the current working title is "How Deep Is My Valley."

So things are looking up the for Times - maybe they're on to something.

Edited March 3, 2007 by rich (log)

Nathan · March 5, 2007

I think some are confusing Journalism proper with restaurant reviewing.

the "Dining and Wine" part of the Times is run under the rubric of the Style Section. It's clear that some here would find that to be the real issue if they thought about it. (and maybe it is....). Nevertheless, that's the section under which restaurant reviews run in the Times...and entertaining writing on the "scene" is certainly in keeping with the general focus of that Section. in other words, your real dispute should be with Keller.

Nathan · March 5, 2007

as I noted up the thread, there was a rather decent steakhouse in a strip club in Boca for years (maybe it's still there). however, the steakhouse had a formal dining room that was kept completely insulated from the strip club...not so with Robert's.

robyn · March 5, 2007

I think some are confusing Journalism proper with restaurant reviewing.
the "Dining and Wine" part of the Times is run under the rubric of the Style Section. It's clear that some here would find that to be the real issue if they thought about it. (and maybe it is....). Nevertheless, that's the section under which restaurant reviews run in the Times...and entertaining writing on the "scene" is certainly in keeping with the general focus of that Section. in other words, your real dispute should be with Keller.
←

Then why is the Style Section different than the Dining Section in the print edition? The Dining Section comes on Wednesday. The Style Section comes on Thursday. (At least that's what we get in Florida.) The Thursday paper also has the (separate) Home and Design section. Note that the Style Section is a relatively new section (can't remember exactly when it started - I'd guess 2 years ago or so). Robyn

Nathan · March 5, 2007

I think some are confusing Journalism proper with restaurant reviewing.
the "Dining and Wine" part of the Times is run under the rubric of the Style Section. It's clear that some here would find that to be the real issue if they thought about it. (and maybe it is....). Nevertheless, that's the section under which restaurant reviews run in the Times...and entertaining writing on the "scene" is certainly in keeping with the general focus of that Section. in other words, your real dispute should be with Keller.
←
Then why is the Style Section different than the Dining Section in the print edition? The Dining Section comes on Wednesday. The Style Section comes on Thursday. (At least that's what we get in Florida.) The Thursday paper also has the (separate) Home and Design section. Note that the Style Section is a relatively new section (can't remember exactly when it started - I'd guess 2 years ago or so). Robyn
←

check the Times website..."Dining & Wine" is clearly subsumed under "Style"

i.e. see http://www.nytimes.com/pages/style/index.html

or www.nytimes.com

edit: I believe you are referring to "Fashion and Style" which comes out on Thursdays and is a separate subsection under the Style Section (as is "Dining & Wine")

Edited March 5, 2007 by Nathan (log)

robyn · March 6, 2007

Robyn, I think that's really going over the line into homophobia.
I'm glad you find the fact that someone is gay so amusing, though.
←

You can accuse me of a lot of things - but being homophobic isn't one of them. Perhaps I just live in a more conservative (although not backwards) part of the world - where being homosexual is just part of who you are - not something to be hidden - or flaunted. E.g., our local design magazine just featured a (very nice looking) house built and occupied by one of my brokers - and "his partner". I didn't know the guy was gay. And I've been his client for almost a decade. Nor had I ever thought about it one way or the other. All I knew or cared about - both before and after reading the article - is that I got good prices and good service from him. Ditto with other (gay) professionals I've dealt with (whether they're doctors or designers or golf instructors - I've dealt with gay people in all those categories - and more). *The most important thing is competence.* I once ordered flowers from a gay florist here. Worst arrangement I ever saw. Needless to say - I never used him again.

BTW - the way you usually find out that people you know here are gay is when you meet them in the grocery store - or at restaurants - and they introduce you to their partners. It's all pretty laid back.

I doubt my husband and I will ever have close social relationships with gay couples - but - then again - we won't have close social relationships with born again Baptists either. Not enough in common. On the other hand - when my husband was training for marathons - his running partner was a gay guy. Mostly because they had similar running backgrounds - and training goals.

On an unrelated issue - I may rethink what I said about the "star system". I just got the 2007 Michelin Guide to Germany. It is written in German (there's no English language edition). Without the stars - the little knives/forks - etc. - I wouldn't have a clue. I guess I could use an English guide like Fodor's - but there you're taking about listings of hundreds of restaurants - instead of thousands. Of course - the Michelin system is a lot different than the NYT system. Robyn

robyn · March 6, 2007

I really don't get why you are so outraged by this article. I really, really don't.
It's not from a lack of your saying enough about it. Rather, I just cannot see what provoked this degree of response from you.
←

It's because I'm more interested in restaurants - and good ones at that - than the fact that Bruni is gay - or aspires to be part of an "inside NY social scene" - or anything else about him - as opposed to good restaurants. But I guess the NYT said it better than I could in today's advertising section for itself: "[Frank Bruni] doesn't think of himself as a restaurant reviewer...he's an investigative restaurant reporter." Maybe for his next round of articles he can report on rats and salmonella. Robyn

robyn · March 6, 2007

We totally agree with Pan and Fat Guy.
This was a funny review, creating a new (perhaps) genre of reviewing.
Frank Bruni rocks.
Who cares what his sexuality is.
We're a married couple writing this together, and it really doesn't enter our minds.
He's funny, he writes well, and we like him.
Everyone seems way too serious about this.
As the Chef of Lucas-Carton said, "It's only grub."
←

Have you ever eaten Alain Senderen's food? I have - both at L'Archestrate and Lucas Carton. And you don't get the sense that he thinks "it's only grub" when you taste his cooking. What's the context of this quote - and where did it come from (perhaps his decision to go from a fine dining restaurant with 3 Michelin stars to a wonderful restaurant with lower prices - less rigorous service standards - and only 2 stars)? Robyn

oakapple · March 6, 2007

The "Dining and Wine" part of the Times is run under the rubric of the Style Section. It's clear that some here would find that to be the real issue if they thought about it. (and maybe it is....). Nevertheless, that's the section under which restaurant reviews run in the Times...and entertaining writing on the "scene" is certainly in keeping with the general focus of that Section. in other words, your real dispute should be with Keller.
←

It's really a stretch if you try to draw conclusions from the org chart. Frank Bruni writes for the Dining section, and his title is Restaurant Critic.

As far as I know, Frank Bruni has broad discretion over what restaurants to review. I don't think Bill Keller told him that the dining section needs to start covering strip clubs, and he (Frank) is just the guy to do it. Both the review subject and the approach were almost certainly Bruni's idea.

If you like what he wrote, you should give credit to Frank Bruni, and not Bill Keller. If you don't like what he wrote, you should blame Frank Bruni, and not Bill Keller. Obviously, over the long term, management is responsible for Bruni being there, and deserves credit for promoting him, or blame for not firing him. But the credit/blame for individual articles surely goes to the critic who's writing them, not the editor or the org chart.

rich · March 6, 2007

doesn't think of himself as a restaurant reviewer...he's an investigative restaurant reporter." Maybe for his next round of articles he can report on rats and salmonella. Robyn
←

If that's true, how does he justify making himself part of all his "investigative reports?" An investigative reporter is supposed inform the readers of a breaking story and should never be part of it. Yet this "IR" always places himself (and his friends) in the middle of the story and opines about various things from the food to music, to bathrooms, to nipples, to owners/chefs private lives etc.

"IRs" don't give opinions, they just relate facts. It blows the whole theory of the Robert's review being funny and entertaining out the window. "IRs" by definition can't be either - they're supposed to uncover heretofore unknown facts and report such.

Either the Times or the reviewer is being disingenuous here. And more importantly, they caused PL to change their whole approach to dining.

PS - I can hardly wait for the review on the Greenwich Village Taco Bell/KFC - since he's an "investigative restaurant reporter," it now becomes imperative he reviews the place. He has no choice if that's how he and the Times view the job.

I'm waiting...

Edited March 6, 2007 by rich (log)

JohnL · March 6, 2007

Interestingly, in yesterday's Times there was a special section dedicated to "selling" some of the Time's reporters as serious "journalists."

On the front page of this section was an ad for bruni.

Headlined:

"He's Doing some serious eating. with Your next meal in mind."

(this under a large photo of someone (presumably Bruni) sitting at a table with a water pitcher hiding his face).

In the large type body copy is the following:

"...he has learned the importance of keeping a low profile; for this beat discretion is key."

also

"As he sees it, he is an investigative restaurant reporter."

This section also has a page dedicated to Andrew Revkin who has been reporting for the Times on global warming and climate change who by the way has another beat:"music." In fact this guy when not covering the very serious topic like global climate plays in a band with Pete Seeger!

Really! This section has to be read to be believed. it IMOP synthesizes everything that is wrong and wrongheaded about the Times present direction. The sort o mini profiles of the reporters featured are dangerously close to unintended self parody!

The Times clearly does not understand the difference between reporters who are knowledgeable journalists and "interesting" people who have really cool life experience and travel a lot.

As I see it, the debate here has come down to whether or not the poster finds Bruni's recent piece funny or not. I do not--as I stated before I find Bruni's humor to be sophomoric and often self serving.

The fact is, if someone enjoys bitchy, and self interested witty restaurant reporting there are a lot of places where this is done much better.

There is a line between good and entertaining writing that is also good journalism and self interested/important personal diary pieces (read blogs) . The Time and Bruni IMOP--have not only crossed the line but trampled on it.

Edited March 6, 2007 by JohnL (log)

rich · March 6, 2007

As I see it, the debate here has come down to whether or not the poster finds Bruni's recent piece funny or not. I do not--as I stated before I find Bruni's humor to be sophomoric and often self serving.
The fact is, if someone enjoys bitchy, and self interested witty restaurant reporting there are a lot of places where this is done much better.
There is a fine line between good and entertaining writing that is also good journalism. The Time and Bruni IMOP--have not only crossed the line but trampled on it.
←

John, you see it that way because that's the way it is - sophomoric at best, self-serving at worst. The Times has become a parody of itself.

A once meaningful, liberal-oriented newspaper with a sometimes keen insight on the substantive issues of the day, it has become no more than a sensationalist tabloid with a flare for the absurd - and nothing exemplifies that better than the Dining Section.

I agree with your entire statement.

JohnL · March 6, 2007

As I see it, the debate here has come down to whether or not the poster finds Bruni's recent piece funny or not. I do not--as I stated before I find Bruni's humor to be sophomoric and often self serving.
The fact is, if someone enjoys bitchy, and self interested witty restaurant reporting there are a lot of places where this is done much better.
There is a fine line between good and entertaining writing that is also good journalism. The Time and Bruni IMOP--have not only crossed the line but trampled on it.
←
John, you see it that way because that's the way it is - sophomoric at best, self-serving at worst. The Times has become a parody of itself.
A once meaningful, liberal-oriented newspaper with a sometimes keen insight on the substantive issues of the day, it has become no more than a sensationalist tabloid with a flare for the absurd - and nothing exemplifies that better than the Dining Section.
I agree with your entire statement.
←

I miss Johnny Apple! :sad:

(and AM Rosenthal and Punch and Frankel and.....)

rich · March 6, 2007

I miss Johnny Apple!
(and AM Rosenthal and Punch and Frankel and.....)
←

I understand... and many others.

Fat Guy · March 6, 2007

There are many problems with the Times, as well as with the dining section, but these claims of tabloid journalism and sensationalism are, at best, out of touch. I mean, I'm looking through the archives, and here's a 1956 article titled "HIGH AIDES' SONS IN SOVIET 'ORGIES'; Moscow Stirred by Report of Sex Scandal Involving Top Official." It begins "This capital is atwitter with the reverberations of a sex and crime scandal attributed by Komsomolskaya Pravda to spoiled teenage children of some leading Communists." Here's a piece from 1977 by Lois Gold about promiscuity, double standards and taboos at MIT that begins "Casanova would have hated it. Don Juan would have thought it was sick. Frank Harris would suspect it was somewhat exaggerated, and Aretino would have said he told you so. As for me, I thought it was historic." And of course we can make the rounds of the other top newspapers today -- Wall Street Journal, Washington Post -- and find plenty of what could be labeled (incorrectly), by the same standards (if you can call them that) that are being presented here, sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That line of argument is just totally off base. What we're talking about here is a simple editorial choice to feature something funny and entertaining. It's not a crisis of ethics in journalism or the death of the Times.

Nathan · March 6, 2007

I'm going to respond simultaneously to oakapple, rich and JohnL cause I think you're all in error in exactly the same way.

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally (no, he wasn't purporting to be Woodward circa 1974 or Hersh circa 1968). "Dining & Wine" is in the Style Section, not the Arts Section. Period. The Style Section is filled with breezy, familiar, even gossipy writing...and has been that way for years. Like I said, if you have a problem with that and think "Dining & Wine" belongs in the serious Arts Section...then take that up with Keller. Nevertheless, that is where Dining & Wine is viewed as fitting by the Times.

(different sections at the Times have had different standards for years...just like every other newspaper. For example, I know for a fact that writers for the Sunday Magazine are encouraged, even expected, to take a more sensationalist and less objective approach than regular news writers at the Times...)

flinflon28 · March 6, 2007

Can't wait for the Sfoglia review tonight/tomorrow. I think we can all use a change of subject by now.

Sneakeater · March 6, 2007

I don't know what it means that "Dining and Wine" are listed under "Styles" on the Times's website. Restaurant reviews used to be in the Friday Arts section. Then the Times started the Wednesday food section, and then -- years later -- the restaurant reviews were moved to that section. Does this mean that the Times affirmatively decided to change the standards for restaurant reviews? Or just that they decided to consolidate their food coverage (most likely for reasons of advertising procurement)? And how can we assume that, whatever the Times's intentions, the movement of the reviews into a different section affected standards? I'd be surprised if it did.

In other words, I wouldn't give as much importance to what rubric restaurant reviews fall under as you do. (Also, unless you've spoken to people who work at the Times, you really can't have any idea how much importance the "placement" of the reviews actually has. You're basing that on your interpretation of what the placing of restaurant reviews under "Style" means. It may have no basis in the functional operative reality of the New York Times.)

Edited March 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

rich · March 6, 2007

It's not a crisis of ethics in journalism or the death of the Times.
←

Now that comment is, at best, "out of touch."

Steve, your're taking things out of context. Your examples about news stories about sex scandals are just that - news stories. I'm sure we can find some of the same type of reporting about the Clinton/Lewinski matter.

What we're talking about here is the type/hype of coverage these stories get - the double-meaning headlines, the photos, the slideshows (the latter obviously didn't exist in the 50's or 70's).

Would the Times of 1997-8 have printed photos (if they existed) of Clinton/Lewinski having sex in the Oval Office? Would the NY Post? I think the answer is no and yes. Today I think the answer would be yes and yes.

If you don't believe this is a crisis period for the Times with respect to ethics, or the death throws of a newspaper in critical condition, there's no more I can say. You continue to read the paper through rose-colored glasses, I will read it for what it's worth - and you already know my view on that.

Edited March 6, 2007 by rich (log)

Fat Guy · March 6, 2007

I'd also not be so quick to write the dining section off as non-serious. It contains a range of content, from hard news pieces (Kim Severson and Marian Burros write many of these) to lighter fare to, of course, restaurant criticism. More importantly, a non-food equivalent of Bruni's piece would have been just fine in many different sections of the paper.

Nathan · March 6, 2007

I don't know what it means that "Dining and Wine" are listed under "Styles" on the Times's website. Restaurant reviews used to be in the Friday Arts section. Then the Times started the Wednesday food section, and then -- years later -- the restaurant reviews were moved to that section. Does this mean that the Times affirmatively decided to change the standards for restaurant reviews? Or just that they decided to consolidate their food coverage (most likely for reasons of advertising procurement)? And how can we assume that, whatever the Times's intentions, the movement of the reviews into a different section affected standards? I'd be surprised if it did.
In other words, I wouldn't give as much importance to what rubric restaurant reviews fall under as you do. (Also, unless you've spoken to people who work at the Times, you really can't have any idea how much importance the "placement" of the reviews actually has. You're basing that on your interpretation of what the placing of restaurant reviews under "Style" means. It may have no basis in the functional operative reality of the New York Times.)
←

It changes the editorial structure which does in fact change the particular standards under which a section is run. I don't know anyone in the food section but I do know several people across other sections...and that's generally how it works (I don't have the foggiest clue what "official" policy is....but simple side by side comparisons will easily prove that different sections have different standards).

Nathan · March 6, 2007

I'd also not be so quick to write the dining section off as non-serious. It contains a range of content, from hard news pieces (Kim Severson and Marian Burros write many of these) to lighter fare to, of course, restaurant criticism. More importantly, a non-food equivalent of Bruni's piece would have been just fine in many different sections of the paper.
←

the same is true of "Fashion & Style"...which is my point.

rich · March 6, 2007

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally
←

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology?

Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined.

Edited March 6, 2007 by rich (log)