Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[Fat Guy]

I fail to see what's inaccurate or funny about Frank Bruni calling himself an "investigative restaurant reporter." The term has no formal definition (try Googling it in quotes -- zero results), so it's not really possible to misuse it. Frank Bruni does happen to have better credentials as an investigative (Pulitzer finalist, etc.) reporter than everybody posting to this topic combined, times a thousand, but he's not even saying he's an investigative reporter -- he's using a different construction. In addition, most people are going to know what it means: that it's a matter of style and approach, and that Frank Bruni feels it's his job to investigate and report on the dining scene. So what? It made for plausible ad copy.

[JohnL]

I fail to see what's inaccurate or funny about Frank Bruni calling himself an "investigative restaurant reporter." The term has no formal definition (try Googling it in quotes -- zero results), so it's not really possible to misuse it. Frank Bruni does happen to have better credentials as an investigative (Pulitzer finalist, etc.) reporter than everybody posting to this topic combined, times a thousand, but he's not even saying he's an investigative reporter -- he's using a different construction. In addition, most people are going to know what it means: that it's a matter of style and approach, and that Frank Bruni feels it's his job to investigate and report on the dining scene. So what? It made for plausible ad copy.

←

I think it's silly and pretentious.

We obviously disagree on this.

Maybe the problem I have is that Bruni seems to approach reviewing restaurants like a reporter rather than a critic. Then becoming a diarist in executing the review.

It seems that his writing style often intrudes --his use of a "hook" to hang the review on is often strained-- too apparent to the reader. A review should convey important information and express opinion which is supported by evidence. I feel there is a problem with writing style often getting in the way of substance with Mr Bruni. I am constantly distracted by his "style" reading his reviews and too often, feel unsatisfied with the information provided and more importantly not provided.

Perhaps one should be a blogger or a diarist or memoirist after one has achieved a certain level of experience and expertise. Then style and personality becomes more relevant in a natural way they are earned. It seems the Times is forcing things with many of its writers and reporters and critics. I believe the paper is (as many newspapers are these days) desperate to find a way to regain its importance in people's lives in the face of a lot of competition from other media. Media that sell style over substance and where stardom is not earned it is simply declared.

[Fat Guy]

John, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying about Frank Bruni, but still see no real problem with calling him an "investigative restaurant reporter." It seems relatively accurate to me.

As you know, I'm not a fan of Frank Bruni's restaurant reviewing. But I try to maintain some perspective. Not everything he does is wrong -- only the things that are wrong. Not every silly thing he writes is a crisis of ethics in journalism or a harbinger of the death of print. Making those distinctions is what separates reasonable criticism from having a chip on one's shoulder.

[oakapple]

Frank Bruni approaches his job very much like an "investigative reporter," so I don't mind the Times describing him that way. Actually, it shows that they realize exactly what they've got.

If the man in the job is not really qualified to do restaurant criticism, it makes a bundle of sense to highlight what he does well.

[JohnL]

John, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying about Frank Bruni, but still see no real problem with calling him an "investigative restaurant reporter." It seems relatively accurate to me.

As you know, I'm not a fan of Frank Bruni's restaurant reviewing. But I try to maintain some perspective. Not everything he does is wrong -- only the things that are wrong. Not every silly thing he writes is a crisis of ethics in journalism or a harbinger of the death of print. Making those distinctions is what separates reasonable criticism from having a chip on one's shoulder.

←

I agree. Sometimes these threads are not just a magnifying glass but often amount to more of a microscope (an electron model at that).

Take today's review of Sfoglia--a restaurant I know well and like a lot.

I think overall, Bruni's review/assessment is fair and accurate.

I like that he mentions the attraction of lunch in a restaurant. I think this should be a regular part of all his reviews--lunch is important--not a one time serendipity (his).

I also believe he leaves out important information that would add substantive perspective to what the chef is attempting here. He (Suhofsky) has a far more interesting background than the passing mention he was a line cook in a Boston restaurant.

While noting that the chef and pastry chef met cute--is, well, cute their not insubstantial backgrounds are IMOP more important.

Also missing is mention of how this place treats vegetables (contorni)--important in Italian cooking and worth noting here.

The fact that Bruni does "know" something about Italy (at least purportedly) would seem to be interesting if applied to this place which does seem to have pretensions of being somewhat "authentic" in its approach.

OK so maybe there is some nit picking here, but again, while I agree in general with Bruni's assessment I am left a bit dissatisfied with with the review. Again, the feeling that while nothing is wrong, there is some perspective and some information that I feel was missing that would have provided me with a better sense of what the restaurant is all about.

[rich]

Not every silly thing he writes is a crisis of ethics in journalism or a harbinger of the death of print.

←

I'll take it a step further - nothing he writes is a crisis of ethics in journalism or a harbinger of the death of print.

No journalist has that power - that power resides with newspaper publishers and editors (the decision makers).

ie - Woodward and Bernstein didn't have that power, but Bradley did.

[Nathan]

I just got around to reading the Sfoglia review. This is one of his best actually. Detailed explication of the cooking...the multiple references to shredded carrots in the sauce of one dish was a nice touch...illustrating deftness and care in the kitchen. Of course, that's to be expected, he has a sure hand with Italian food....I think it's the only place where he feels entirely comfortable (he's comfortable with Asian cuisines...but in a different way, his approach there is more of an enthusiastic amateur willing to try everything and love it).

There's one other thing this review illustrates -- Bruni's largesse toward small "mom and pop" (in this case, literally) restaurants. He didn't like it last summer but simply put them on notice in the DJ to get their act together....and it's clear that he wouldn't have given them a formal review at all if they hadn't....but since they did, they were rewarded..handsomely.

[ghostrider]

Seems to me that Bruni's designation as IRR, while not inaccurate, was also being said with a nod & a wink.

However, I would not expect an IRR to be responsible for handing out the stars; I think that comes from someone with a different job description. Yet Bruni does award the stars, so the Times chose to de-emphasize that aspect of his role at the paper, at least temporarily. Are they trying to sweep that under the rug? Setting the stage for a real change? No, most probably just trying to get people to talk about the Times.

[rich]

I just got around to reading the Sfoglia review.  This is one of his best actually.  Detailed explication of the cooking...the multiple references to shredded carrots in the sauce of one dish was a nice touch...illustrating deftness and care in the kitchen.  Of course, that's to be expected, he has a sure hand with Italian food....I think it's the only place where he feels entirely comfortable (he's comfortable with Asian cuisines...but in a different way, his approach there is more of an enthusiastic amateur willing to try everything and love it).

There's one other thing this review illustrates -- Bruni's largesse toward small "mom and pop" (in this case, literally) restaurants.  He didn't like it last summer but simply put them on notice in the DJ to get their act together....and it's clear that he wouldn't have given them a formal review at all if they hadn't....but since they did, they were rewarded..handsomely.

←

Actually it is a good review.

Does anyone have the link to the slideshow? I can't find it anywhere on-line.

[Nathan]

Seems to me that Bruni's designation as IRR, while not inaccurate, was also being said with a nod & a wink.

However, I would not expect an IRR to be responsible for handing out the stars; I think that comes from someone with a different job description.  Yet Bruni does award the stars, so the Times chose to de-emphasize that aspect of his role at the paper, at least temporarily.  Are they trying to sweep that under the rug?  Setting the stage for a real change?  No, most probably just trying to get people to talk about the Times.

←

oh gosh. this is very naive. you're reading vastly too much into an ad.

look, the Times is a major corporation. here's how this ad would have worked. the ad/pr department decides to do an ad referencing the dining suggestion (among other things). they call up Bruni for a pithy quote (or e-mail him). he either comes up with one on the spot....or calls or emails them back with one...the ad editor...calls him up (or e-mails) and says...can we rephrase your quote this way? and Bruni says "how about this way..." (alternatively, Bruni gives them five different quotes and says "pick one"). and there you have it. all done in about twenty minutes. no deep thought put into it. just catchy copy.

edit: my point here is that they weren't trying to get people to "talk about the Times" either....cause the group of people who would be intrigued by the Bruni reference and wonder if it was a policy change or would find it controversial....numbers approximately 8 people...total. and they're all posting on this thread. folks, this group is very insular and self-selected. there are a lot of foodies in NY, sure, and about 99.9999% of them could care less what Bruni calls himself in an ad

Edited March 7, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[rich]

there are a lot of foodies in NY, sure, and about 99.9999% of them could care less what Bruni calls himself in an ad

←

The number could even be higher than that.

[oakapple]

I just got around to reading the Sfoglia review.  This is one of his best actually.

Does Bruni ever do a review you don't approve of?

There's one other thing this review illustrates -- Bruni's largesse toward small "mom and pop" (in this case, literally) restaurants.

←

I agree. Two stars was entirely predictable, based on his past performance. But it reads like one star to me.

Seems to me that Bruni's designation as IRR, while not inaccurate, was also being said with a nod & a wink.

However, I would not expect an IRR to be responsible for handing out the stars; I think that comes from someone with a different job description.

←

I wouldn't over-interpret the ad. All restaurant critics are, in a sense, reporters too. That doesn't make Bruni a great critic, but it doesn't disqualify him either.

Does anyone have the link to the slideshow?  I can't find it anywhere on-line.

←

There's no slideshow this time. He doesn't do one every week.

[rich]

Does anyone have the link to the slideshow?  I can't find it anywhere on-line.

←

There's no slideshow this time. He doesn't do one every week.

←

What? No Slideshow? For a two star diamond on the UES? What?

No half-naked women? No shots of the locker room of the 92nd St. Y?

I feel empty and abused and robbed and frustrated.

What? No Slideshow?

[Nathan]

I just got around to reading the Sfoglia review.  This is one of his best actually.

Does Bruni ever do a review you don't approve of?

Having eaten at A Voce...I think three stars might be a little strong. Ditto for three for Bar Room at the Modern (contrawise, I would have been amazed and probably supported three for Ssam Bar).

He vastly overrated that Filipino place in SoHo (I didn't know that at the time of the review cause I hadn't been there yet.)

I'm sure there are more if I went over the archives. Too many of his reviews don't have enough on the food (although he has been significantly better on this over the last six months).

Does anyone have the link to the slideshow?  I can't find it anywhere on-line.

←

There's no slideshow this time. He doesn't do one every week.

←

Rich was joking....

Edited March 15, 2007 by phaelon56 (log)

[rich]

See Nathan, I have a sense of humor...

Edited March 7, 2007 by rich (log)

[robyn]

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.

←

I mentioned this insert a little up thread. Did you get it in New York or elsewhere (I got it in the Florida edition)? It's hard for people who read the on-line edition to get the flavor of the insert. I thought it was stupid. Especially stupid with regard to Bruni since it's easy to get a picture of his face on line.

I'll note that one thing that keeps me a NYT subscriber is its business content and staff (been friends with some of the reporters for a long time - and a source for some of them - although most of those people are retired now). Thank goodness the business section hasn't deteriorated as much intellectually as some other sections. Or perhaps no one has decided to make it into a clone of "Money Magazine" yet.

BTW - I am a sometimes fan of sophmoric humor. But Dave Barry does it a lot better than Frank Bruni IMO.

Global warming reporting is an interesting topic. I'm not sure that any mainstream media does a decent job of reporting what's happening and being discussed in the scientific community. Too much political baggage in most articles (on both sides). Once in a while - I'll spend a few hours in the evening reading scientific reports - meeting reports - etc. Most of it is over my head - but I think I manage to get a better idea of the contours of the controversy. Robyn

[robyn]

But I don't attribute that section to The Death Of The Times.  I attribute it to The Waning Of Print Media.

←

You're being kind. Other papers have moved into the 21st Century quite comfortably by using the internet to its advantage.

←

Actually - that is not true.

The only newspaper that has been ok on the internet is the WSJ. People will actually pay for it. Otherwise - many/most newspapers have been in deep s*** in the 21st century due to several factors. One is the internet. And the migration of classified ads to the internet. But another - and perhaps the most important - is that whereas the average US adult used to read (or at least buy) a daily newspaper - most don't these days. The demographics for newspapers are awful - almost worse than those for Buicks.

The only thing that will save newspapers is this new idea that billionaires will buy them up as "vanity ownings". What's more important than having $5 billion? Having $5 billion and telling people what you think about everything. We'll see what Geffen et al do with the LA Times. If there's a buyout - it may be the start of a trend. Of course - there's a downside. People like Hank Greenberg (AIG) and others are interested in buying major media because they're PO'd about what the media has written about them. Robyn

[robyn]

Fine dining is a form of entertainment

I agree. If I don't have a good time eating - a restaurant is a failure in my opinion.

Have any of you dined at a restaurant on the basis of a Bruni review and been entertained - had a good time?

It's funny. I haven't been in NY for a few years - but we had the most fun at DB&D last time. Read about it in a review from who knows where - and the review said it had a limo outside where you could have a cigarette when it was cold. Sounded like fun to me - so I went. It was fun - and the food (at least then) was really good to boot. So have you ever found a place you liked this much on the basis of a Bruni review? Robyn

[robyn]

Again:

Mr. Tarte Tatin wrote earlier; and now me.

Frank Bruni is great.

He's a storyteller, and allows those of us not able to go to the restaurants he writes about, to experience it in our minds.

He's funny. He's articulate.

He DOES know about food, now. Who cares about the past.

He's re-defining food reviewing.

We like his writing and his expertise.

And, most of all, his stories.

←

So you're saying that the role of a restaurant reviewer is to give you some vicarious thrills - as opposed to delivering information to people who might actually be interested in eating in a restaurant? Do you read newspaper reviews of restaurants in cities other than New York that you'll never visit? Robyn

[oakapple]

Yesterday's Village Voice has an article about what Frank Bruni would choose for his last meal.

His choices won't come as a surprise to anyone who reads his reviews: a porterhouse steak; toro-stuffed maki rolls, like the ones they serve at Masa; and "some buttery taglierini with heart-of-season white truffles shaved over it. Just like you'd get in the Piedmont region of Italy, which is one of my favorite areas in the world for eating."

To me, the notable quote is:

I think the centerpiece, main course, whatever of my final meal wouldn't be a fussy labor of extraordinary technique—it would be a thick porterhouse, grilled or broiled, so that it had a nice char.

Here, yet again, we find one of his favorite derogatory words—fussy—used to describe extraordinary technique.

His comment, taken literally, doesn't foreclose the possibility of "extraordinary technique" that isn't fussy. But he has used that word over & over again in this context. It cements my view that Bruni doesn't really enjoy the restaurants that serve this type of food. What others find "extraordinary," he finds "fussy." He can't eliminate those restaurants from his job description, but his visits aren't a labor of love. His heart is elsewhere.

[robyn]

It's also worth noting, again, that Frank Bruni is a serious journalist...

←

Is - or was? Barbara Walters used to do serious interviews. When was the last time you saw one of those?

I'm not necessarily faulting the reporters. They need to make a living. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times. You adapt to the new media imperatives - or you become a dinosaur. Robyn

[ghostrider]

Seems to me that Bruni's designation as IRR, while not inaccurate, was also being said with a nod & a wink.

However, I would not expect an IRR to be responsible for handing out the stars; I think that comes from someone with a different job description.  Yet Bruni does award the stars, so the Times chose to de-emphasize that aspect of his role at the paper, at least temporarily.  Are they trying to sweep that under the rug?  Setting the stage for a real change?  No, most probably just trying to get people to talk about the Times.

←

oh gosh. this is very naive. you're reading vastly too much into an ad.

look, the Times is a major corporation. here's how this ad would have worked. the ad/pr department decides to do an ad referencing the dining suggestion (among other things). they call up Bruni for a pithy quote (or e-mail him). he either comes up with one on the spot....or calls or emails them back with one...the ad editor...calls him up (or e-mails) and says...can we rephrase your quote this way? and Bruni says "how about this way..." (alternatively, Bruni gives them five different quotes and says "pick one"). and there you have it. all done in about twenty minutes. no deep thought put into it. just catchy copy.

←

Dude, I've worked at major corporations, and I've seen changes in major players' roles presaged in precisely this way. It's not naive. Speculative, I'll grant you, perhaps highly so in this particular instance. But I've seen stranger things happen.

[robyn]

John, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying about Frank Bruni, but still see no real problem with calling him an "investigative restaurant reporter." It seems relatively accurate to me.

As you know, I'm not a fan of Frank Bruni's restaurant reviewing. But I try to maintain some perspective. Not everything he does is wrong -- only the things that are wrong. Not every silly thing he writes is a crisis of ethics in journalism or a harbinger of the death of print. Making those distinctions is what separates reasonable criticism from having a chip on one's shoulder.

←

We have investigative restaurant reporters where I live. They probably exist in lots of other places too. They're mostly TV guys (and girls). They're the ones who go to restaurants to find dirt and filth - the restaurants who serve snapper and call it grouper - the places that serve large numbers of underage drinkers. They find underpaid workers - and illegal workers. Stuff like that. Reckon you might have a few in New York - and have seen some of their work. Robyn

[Nathan]

Fine dining is a form of entertainment

I agree. If I don't have a good time eating - a restaurant is a failure in my opinion.

Have any of you dined at a restaurant on the basis of a Bruni review and been entertained - had a good time?

It's funny. I haven't been in NY for a few years - but we had the most fun at DB&D last time. Read about it in a review from who knows where - and the review said it had a limo outside where you could have a cigarette when it was cold. Sounded like fun to me - so I went. It was fun - and the food (at least then) was really good to boot. So have you ever found a place you liked this much on the basis of a Bruni review? Robyn

←

Little Owl.

I liked Petrosino very much as well.

but of course, this line of thought makes no sense since I'm already familiar with every restaurant that Bruni reviews. that's easy to do in NY if you pay attention. for people less obsessed about dining, I'm sure that Bruni (or any Times critic) can do a great deal of good...many people wouldn't have heard of Sriphithai or Spicy & Tasty without him...or Oriental Garden.

Edited March 8, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

Yesterday's Village Voice has an article about what Frank Bruni would choose for his last meal.

His choices won't come as a surprise to anyone who reads his reviews: a porterhouse steak; toro-stuffed maki rolls, like the ones they serve at Masa; and "some buttery taglierini with heart-of-season white truffles shaved over it. Just like you'd get in the Piedmont region of Italy, which is one of my favorite areas in the world for eating."

To me, the notable quote is:

I think the centerpiece, main course, whatever of my final meal wouldn't be a fussy labor of extraordinary technique—it would be a thick porterhouse, grilled or broiled, so that it had a nice char.

Here, yet again, we find one of his favorite derogatory words—fussy—used to describe extraordinary technique.

His comment, taken literally, doesn't foreclose the possibility of "extraordinary technique" that isn't fussy. But he has used that word over & over again in this context. It cements my view that Bruni doesn't really enjoy the restaurants that serve this type of food. What others find "extraordinary," he finds "fussy." He can't eliminate those restaurants from his job description, but his visits aren't a labor of love. His heart is elsewhere.

←

I agree with your general perception of Bruni. With that said, this interview doesn't make that case. The key quote: "I spend most of my dinners tasting a lot of different dishes, so for my last meal I think I'd want to keep it to a very, very few favorite things. No dozen-course extravaganza."

Well, duh. I wouldn't be surprised if every professional restaurant reviewer in the country expressed the same sentiment. Besides who wouldn't have a desire for a primal last meal before the chair?