Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[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?[...]

←

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.

←

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.

The first rule of journalism is a reporter not use his/her media outlet to "impose" or promote their personal agenda upon their audience. That's a concept you learn day-one on the job. (Obviously if the reporter is writing an editorial - and it's clear that it's an editorial - different rules apply.)

I agree that the whole incident, from his inside jokes to the Times promoting of the sex angle, may be funny Pan (especially since it is the NY Times), but it's certainly not professional newspaper behavior. It's tabloid journalism at its best or worst - depending on your point of view. And if that's the road the Times chooses to travel, I wish them all the best.

Maybe having two NY Posts in town will prove to be interesting. I wonder which of the two will publish the first pictures (and slide show) of Ms. Smith's autopsy photos?

[rich]

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.

←

And you know what Steve - he could have said all of that in the same two sentences you used in the first paragraph - and everyone in the reviewer's entire universe would have understood and been entertained.

After all, I think he was named one of the top five entertainers in the world for 2006. He certainly didn't make the list as a food/restaurant critic.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

[oakapple]

The first rule of journalism is a reporter not use his/her media outlet to "impose" or promote their personal agenda upon their audience. That's a concept you learn day-one on the job. (Obviously if the reporter is writing an editorial - and it's clear that it's an editorial - different rules apply.)

←

In criticism, which is plainly a subjective personal opinion, the review inevitably will reflect the writer's agenda. I mean, Mimi Sheraton, Bryan Miller, and Ruth Reichl all had agendas — for good or ill — which were reflected in the very different bodies of work they produced.

I'm amazed that there are reasonable people who think Bruni got it "just right." Although I didn't have a problem with the review, it doesn't take much imagination to find other "good" ways it could have been done. The Alex Wichtel piece, although not a review, shows another totally legitimate approach.

[Sneakeater]

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.

←

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

A review of Hawaiian Tropic Zone, for example, that didn't focus on the fact that there are these female "table concierges" in bikinis who chat you up throughout your meal, etc., would be misrepresenting the experience of eating there. Imagine if a review wrote only about the food, and you went, not knowing what the place was like. You'd feel sandbagged.

[Sneakeater]

I'm amazed that there's this long thread that exists mostly to say Bruni knows dick. 

←

Actually, the problem most of us have with Bruni is that he doesn't know dick. About food, anyway.

[rich]

The first rule of journalism is a reporter not use his/her media outlet to "impose" or promote their personal agenda upon their audience. That's a concept you learn day-one on the job. (Obviously if the reporter is writing an editorial - and it's clear that it's an editorial - different rules apply.)

←

In criticism, which is plainly a subjective personal opinion, the review inevitably will reflect the writer's agenda. I mean, Mimi Sheraton, Bryan Miller, and Ruth Reichl all had agendas — for good or ill — which were reflected in the very different bodies of work they produced.

←

There's a big difference though Marc. They are giving you their impressions based on professional experience - any good reporter will do that. The good ones may even have an agenda to promote within their field of expertise. ie Nouvelle cuisine, Italian, more casual, more formal - that type of stuff comes out in eveyone's writing.

What I was referring to - when a reporter or critic uses their medium to promote or impose an agenda that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

For example if a police beat reporter uses a story to complain about a speeding ticket she/he receieved, if a restaurant critic uses a review to promote inside jokes about their sexual orientation. And this is not the first time he has used a review to push a personal agenda. He did it with Bouley, Myers and even Chodorow. It seems part of his personality and in my opinion it's petty.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

[rich]

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.

←

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

A review of Hawaiian Tropic Zone, for example, that didn't focus on the fact that there are these female "table concierges" in bikinis who chat you up throughout your meal, etc., would be misrepresenting the experience of eating there. Imagine if a review wrote only about the food, and you went, not knowing what the place was like. You'd feel sandbagged.

←

I agree SE - what the problem is the extent in which it was covered - by both the reviewer and more especially the NY Times.

If the Topic Zone is ever reviewed, it's very important to say the waitresses are clad in bikinis. However, I don't think it would be necessary to say at times you could see "Brianna's" nipples pointing through the fabric.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

[Sneakeater]

You see, the thing is, I think it WOULD be important to say things like that.

From what I understand (never been), saying ONLY that the "waitresses" at Hawaiian Tropic Zone were in bikinis would seriously misrepresent what it's like to eat there.

And, of course, a strip club is much more extreme than Hawaiian Tropic Zone. I just don't know how you can convey the experience of eating in a strip club without talking about all the stuff Bruni talked about. If he didn't, and I went, under the impression the restaurant was perhaps sort of separate from the club and its activities, I'd feel misled.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Fat Guy]

Just as it's important for journalists not to inject personal agendas into reporting, it's also important not to conclude that, just because a piece wasn't written the way you wanted it written, it's journalistically irresponsible.

Frank Bruni had a range of responsible options in terms of how much attention he could choose to give the dancers at the Penthouse Club. The New York Times editorial staff had a range of responsible options in terms of how much exposure, how much column space, how many photos to give Frank Bruni's review. Everybody, it seems to me, acted within bounds. And in the end we got a deliciously entertaining review and a great piece of writing.

I also don't see any agendas. In the context of this article, the sexual orientation thing is more of a disclosure than an agenda. It places everything in context. Surely, if Bruni hadn't drawn attention to his orientation, everybody else would be snickering about it right now. He has nothing to hide, and the piece is more entertaining given his bemused outsider viewpoint.

Nor do I see the slightest bit of hostility towards women. Skip right over, for the moment, the controversy within the feminist community about so-called adult entertainment (plenty of feminists are overtly hostile towards strippers -- it's really just the Camille Paglia minority that celebrates these sorts of displays). I would just like to see which sentences people think are hostile towards women. I can't find one. If anything, Bruni feels bad for these women and adopts a moderately sympathetic posture. Yes, he pokes fun of some of them, but that's not the same as hostility -- not on my home planet.

[oakapple]

And this is not the first time he has used a review to push a personal agenda. He did it with Bouley, Myers and even Chodorow. It seems part of his personality and in my opinion it's petty.

←

I think this is different, because the sexual part of the review isn't "for" or "against" anybody. It's just describing the restaurant in a way that is personally relevant to him. The fact is, when dining at Robert's Steakhouse, the models are coming over to you the whole evening long making provocative comments, and trying to sell you "extras." That is part of the experience.

The Bouley/Meyer/Chodorow comments were different, because they were comments about somebody, and it is therefore important that they be accurate, balanced, and relevant.

Nor do I see the slightest bit of hostility towards women.

←

I don't either. Obviously the feminists would object to this type of reporting, no matter who was writing it.

[rich]

Just as it's important for journalists not to inject personal agendas into reporting, it's also important not to conclude that, just because a piece wasn't written the way you wanted it written, it's journalistically irresponsible.

Frank Bruni had a range of responsible options in terms of how much attention he could choose to give the dancers at the Penthouse Club. The New York Times editorial staff had a range of responsible options in terms of how much exposure, how much column space, how many photos to give Frank Bruni's review. Everybody, it seems to me, acted within bounds. And in the end we got a deliciously entertaining review and a great piece of writing.

I also don't see any agendas. In the context of this article, the sexual orientation thing is more of a disclosure than an agenda. It places everything in context. Surely, if Bruni hadn't drawn attention to his orientation, everybody else would be snickering about it right now. He has nothing to hide, and the piece is more entertaining given his bemused outsider viewpoint.

Nor do I see the slightest bit of hostility towards women. Skip right over, for the moment, the controversy within the feminist community about so-called adult entertainment (plenty of feminists are overtly hostile towards strippers -- it's really just the Camille Paglia minority that celebrates these sorts of displays). I would just like to see which sentences people think are hostile towards women. I can't find one. If anything, Bruni feels bad for these women and adopts a moderately sympathetic posture. Yes, he pokes fun of some of them, but that's not the same as hostility -- not on my home planet.

←

I don't see any hostility toward women.

I don't agree the Times made a responsible choice - not even close. It opens pandora's box on how restaurants are covered in the future - and not in a good way.

I don't care how the piece was written as I have said many times in the above posts (but no one seems to listen). I may not agree with him using inside jokes about his sexuality, but that's minor. The major objection was in the manner it was covered by the Times editorial staff. And there can be no discussion or debate that they covered it as a tabloid would - that's the major problem for me.

You make a statement he has/had nothing to hide. Well, I was one of the few people in the world (at least according to the posts on this thread) along with Ms. du Bois who didn't know or care about his sexual orientation. Even after reading the reviews, I still didn't know or care. I never struck me as important and I wasn't looking for anything of that nature.

However, I will assume (very dangerous) at least a few other readers didn't know. If he felt it necessary to portray that in his article then why not just say something to the affect "...as a gay man I found it humorous to have half-naked women falling all over me..." Why was it necessary to use the inside jokes if there was nothing to hide?

[rich]

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.

←

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

A review of Hawaiian Tropic Zone, for example, that didn't focus on the fact that there are these female "table concierges" in bikinis who chat you up throughout your meal, etc., would be misrepresenting the experience of eating there. Imagine if a review wrote only about the food, and you went, not knowing what the place was like. You'd feel sandbagged.

←

I understand your point SE (though I still believe he went way overboard in his despcriptions of the girls) and as I said that was a just minor problem for me. It was more how the Times handled it that is the issue.

[Fat Guy]

On the narrow issue of positioning/exposure, I can't see it as sensationalism. I think you're using a definition of sensationalism, Rich, that just doesn't have relevance to any of the living/arts/entertainment sections. But even if we were talking about a news section, sensationalism implies exaggeration or distortion, or just plain inappropriate subject matter. Since we're all agreed that the subject-matter is appropriate, where is the exaggeration or distortion? The story and its positioning meet the criteria for how to run a good human-interest story. Oddity, conflict and emotion -- to invoke some of the terms used in ethics-in-journalism discussions -- do not equal sensationalism. They are actually considered justifications for human-interest stories.

[Sneakeater]

Not to keep beating a dead nipple, but, with reference to the Alex Witchel article being used as a stick with which to beat Frank Bruni, does anybody think that if Ms. Witchel wrote a feature on visiting Robert's, instead of an interview with its chef, she wouldn't have focused on the exact same things Bruni did (with perhaps a bunch of jokes about being female instead of about being gay)?

[oakapple]

Not to keep beating a dead nipple, but, with reference to the Alex Witchel article being used as a stick with which to beat Frank Bruni, does anybody think that if Ms. Witchel wrote a feature on visiting Robert's, instead of an interview with its chef, she wouldn't have focused on the exact same things Bruni did (with perhaps a bunch of jokes about being female instead of about being gay)?

←

It's pretty clear that she did visit Robert's:

It's tough trying to conduct an interview while at the next table a voluptuous woman in spangles has dropped her top and is treating one happy executive to a lap dance. It was even tougher, I soon discovered, trying to eat a steak dinner while another enterprising gal gyrated her bare buttocks just inches from the entree. But as they say here at the Penthouse Executive Club, that's entertainment.

And indeed, his steaks — on the plate — are exquisite, packed with flavor. Although Mr. Lang's menu offers fancier dishes for a night on the town, like tuna tartare with quail egg and sourdough toasts, it would be crazy to miss the impeccable Caesar salad. When it comes to the litchi sorbet palate cleanser, however, you're on your own.

As for Robert's, he remains philosophical. "It's not a seedy joint," he said, sitting in the cocktail lounge. "It's clean, it's fun." Indeed, in a rather endearing display of monogamy, a man at a corner table requested three lap dances from the same woman. But Mr. Lang's gaze was focused on the empty plates being cleared by the busboys.

[Sneakeater]

Well, yeah, but that isn't what I said, is it?

Do you think the Witchel piece could have been run as a review? Absolutely not, right?

[rich]

On the narrow issue of positioning/exposure, I can't see it as sensationalism. I think you're using a definition of sensationalism, Rich, that just doesn't have relevance to any of the living/arts/entertainment sections. But even if we were talking about a news section, sensationalism implies exaggeration or distortion, or just plain inappropriate subject matter. Since we're all agreed that the subject-matter is appropriate, where is the exaggeration or distortion? The story and its positioning meet the criteria for how to run a good human-interest story. Oddity, conflict and emotion -- to invoke some of the terms used in ethics-in-journalism discussions -- do not equal sensationalism. They are actually considered justifications for human-interest stories.

←

The answer I would give, Steve, is no other restaurant was ever given this type of coverage, regardless of the stars. This restaurant was given the "exposure" because of the sex angle and the sex angle alone. I think we all agree on that. And I don't think the sex angle is "human interest" in the newspaper (not tabloid) sense of the word. That they serve great steaks should be most important - that it's being done in a strip joint should be a side bar, not the glaring headline(s) and slide show.

I happen to believe to exploit the sex angle is sensationalism for a newspaper - it makes it into a tabloid. I would have expected the NY Post to have covered the article in that manner.

Maybe I've been deluding myself into thinking there was a difference between the Post and the Times - maybe I was wrong. At least it certainly appears that way now.

[Fat Guy]

But Rich, the scandalous aspect is real. It's a steakhouse where women get naked at your table. It's not sensationalism to cover a sensational story or put it on the front page of a section. If a sensational event with public relevance happens in the real world, and the newspaper's editors think it will be interesting, it's fair game to put it anywhere in the paper including on A1. Sensationalism is taking stories and exaggerating them so they're gratuitously scandalous. Putting a first-person account of dinner at a restaurant in a gentlemen's club on the front page of the dining section is just recognizing a great story. It's what editors do.

[oakapple]

Do you think the Witchel piece could have been run as a review?  Absolutely not, right?

←

Clearly not, because she interviewed the chef, and Bruni never meets the people he is reviewing. He does sometimes interview them by telephone, though. But in the course of the article, she does, in a sense "review" the food, though only briefly.

I cite it mainly to show another perfectly reasonable way that someone who has dined at Roberts could describe the "non-food" experience without dwelling on it to the degree that Bruni did.

I put the Robert's Steakhouse review in the same family as The Waverly Inn, Sascha, Bette and LCB Brasserie Rachou — in all of which, to one degree or another, the "scene" was as important, or more important to him, than the food.

It is certainly one reasonable evolution of the food critic's job to describe scenes, not restaurants. But it isn't the only one.

[Sneakeater]

I agree with you. But in this particular case, it seems to me that the scene so far exceeds the food in terms of both interest and impact on the potential consumer that it wouldn't make sense not to focus on the scene. You could argue that therefore this place isn't valid review fodder. And I'd argue back (if you did) that in this case, the presence of a serious chef with a serious food program warrants a review. But it would be both silly and irresponsible to downplay the very odd scene in any account of eating at this place.

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[rich]

But Rich, the scandalous aspect is real. It's a steakhouse where women get naked at your table. It's not sensationalism to cover a sensational story or put it on the front page of a section. If a sensational event with public relevance happens in the real world, and the newspaper's editors think it will be interesting, it's fair game to put it anywhere in the paper including on A1. Sensationalism is taking stories and exaggerating them so they're gratuitously scandalous. Putting a first-person account of dinner at a restaurant in a gentlemen's club on the front page of the dining section is just recognizing a great story. It's what editors do.

←

Steve, we could go back and forth like this forever. If this story was so important or "great" and so scandalous then why did it take the Times three years to cover it? News has no shelf life.

This is not an event, which implies by definition a single occurrence though it may re-occur at various times or annually, ie the Kentucky Derby. This is an ongoing business concern. The Times wasn't breaking any news here.

It wasn't covering a sex scandal (the Times chose not to print some of the more graphic details during the Clinton scandal) it doesn't have public relevance (the sex angle) except for those who go to strip clubs - and they did exaggerate it because it was part of the restaurant review.

Nothing can change my mind about the reason for those headlines, the placement, the slide show and the photos - that's exaggeration, not a "great" story the Times just broke. I don't think it quite measures up to Watergate or even Keller opening a NY branch of the French Laundry (and the latter didn't receive that kind of exposure.)

I doubt this story is Pulitzer material.

Edited March 2, 2007 by rich (log)

[Fat Guy]

I do think there are parallels at least to the Waverly and Sascha pieces, because in those he intentionally departs from the standard review format. However, I think both the Waveryly and Sascha pieces are failures, and the Penthouse Club review is a success. To me, the fact that Graydon Carter owns a place, or that it's a scene place on multiple floors, doesn't justify a cutesy review. I also don't think those reviews were particularly clever, and, worse, Bruni comes across as believing he himself is extremely clever. The Penthouse Club, however, is an envoronment where women come to your table, take their clothes off, give you massages, flirt with you, etc. That's so unusual for a restaurant that, in my opinion, it warrants a format-buster review. If there is a slippery slope, the Penthouse Club review is not nearly as far along that slope as the Waverly review -- so at least we're going up the slope for now.

[rich]

But it would be both silly and irresponsible to downplay the very odd scene in any account of eating at this place.

←

True, but the sex/strip club coverage shouldn't overwhelm the reason the review (very good steaks) and that's what the Times did.

[Fat Guy]

If this story was so important or "great"  and so scandalous then why did it take the Times three years to cover it? News has no shelf life.

←

It didn't take the Times three years to cover it. It did take Bruni three years to write a review. But reviews aren't exactly news stories, and timeliness is just one of many factors newspapers look at anyway (a factor that has more relevance to some kinds of stories than to others). It's just as appropriate to review a restaurant ten years after it opens as it is to review it ten weeks after it opens. In this case, the buzz about Robert's has been building for awhile. Bruni has probably been getting letters and hearing from people he trusts that the steaks are really good. He probably discounted it at first, but eventually was won over to the idea of trying it out. Once he was in the door, the story started to write itself. Once the story was on the editor's desk, it was obvious that it was going to be the section-leading material for the week.

[Sneakeater]

But it would be both silly and irresponsible to downplay the very odd scene in any account of eating at this place.

←

True, but the sex/strip club coverage shouldn't overwhelm the reason the review (very good steaks) and that's what the Times did.

←

The thing is, I think it's so odd that it should.

To me, the story here is (a) very good steaks in (b) very odd surroundings with ©very high prices. To me, in making a consumer choice, "(b)" and "©" are probably more important, in this case, than "(a)".

Edited March 2, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)