Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

What I wonder about is how the Times will ever be able to find Bruni's replacement. It's clear to me that the Times has painted itself into a corner. By insisting on the charade of anonymity, the Times has ruled out most modern-era top food writers. Essentially, it seems the Times is going to be forced to use in-house reporters -- company men -- for this job, because no accomplished outsider in today's multimedia world is going to be obscure and unknown enough to do the job. So that means Bruni's replacement will likely know as little about New York restaurants as Bruni did when he started three years ago, and we'll all have to endure a years-long learning curve with unpredictable results. It's amazing that, just as food writing has been coming into its own as a recognized, serious discipline, the Times has created a situation where it won't hire a food writer to be its restaurant reviewer.

←

I think you're imagining an unnecessary parade of horribles. The Times already knows that its critics are usually recognized. When Bruni was announced in the job, his photo was widely available on the web. If anonymity were the main driver, they could have picked somebody far less well known. And they didn't mind having Amanda Hesser as a long-term fill-in, even though she was likewise easily spotted—perhaps even more so than Bruni. Even if they picked a total unknown, it wouldn't be long before all the main kitchens in town had phone-cam shots of him or her. You cannot possibly believe that the Times doesn't realize this.

None of this explains why Bruni got the job, but the explanation given can't be the reason. I know you're not in favor of critic anonymity, but that is an entirely separate issue. My own view is that the Times basically thought that restaurant reviewing was something anybody could do. So they opted for a generic writer with a hobbyist interest in restaurants, rather than someone who has actually trained in the field.

Edited October 1, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Fat Guy]

While they do understand that the critic gets recognized, that's secondary to the obsession with continuing the anonymity charade in the eyes of the public.

[oakapple]

While they do understand that the critic gets recognized, that's secondary to the obsession with continuing the anonymity charade in the eyes of the public.

←

But you haven't offered any evidence that this was the reason why Bruni was chosen, or that it will figure in the decision on his replacement.

I also don't understand your use of the word "charade". Both Bruni and Asimov have repeatedly acknowledged that they are frequently recognized. Reichl's many disguises (also publicly acknowledged) amounted to an admission of the same thing.

The average reader probably doesn't know about the "anonymity policy." But those who do know about it are probably equally aware of the various admissions of its imperfection. A charade would be if they actually claimed that they are never recognized.

[Fat Guy]

Since all the discussions happen in secret, we can only speculate, but I think we've seen the end of food writers as Times dining critics. I imagine the anonymity issue was a major concern with Jay McInerney and Bill Buford -- that picking one of these writers would expose the charade. And I think you're way off base with respect to public perception of Times critic anonymity. I talk to people all the time about this. Pretty much whenever I meet a new person and say what I do -- even though I just say I write about food -- they ask me if I wear disguises. It's the one thing everybody "knows" about restaurant reviewing: that critics are always working hard to be anonymous.

[ulterior epicure]

Yes, Bruni will be just fine...

Right, my comment above was not out of a fear that Bruni would go hungry post-NYT, so to speak. Rather I was just curious where he might land, given his many-credentialed and coloured past.

By insisting on the charade of anonymity, the Times has ruled out most modern-era top food writers. Essentially, it seems the Times is going to be forced to use in-house reporters -- company men -- for this job, because no accomplished outsider in today's multimedia world is going to be obscure and unknown enough to do the job. So that means Bruni's replacement will likely know as little about New York restaurants as Bruni did when he started three years ago, and we'll all have to endure a years-long learning curve with unpredictable results. It's amazing that, just as food writing has been coming into its own as a recognized, serious discipline, the Times has created a situation where it won't hire a food writer to be its restaurant reviewer.

1. Is it a charade, necessarily? As Barber's article in this months' Gourmet demonstrates, it's not that obvious who the critic is...

2. The NYT could always import from another city and publication... Reichl was brought in that way. Bruni came from overseas...

[Fat Guy]

I haven't read the Barber article, but nobody has said the critic is recognized 100% of the time. It's more like 75% if we take the Asimov figure to be correct. I agree that we'll most likely see a replay of the Bruni and Grimes scenarios: someone from another department of the Times (either overseas or domestic) who knows little about the dining scene. I doubt we'll see another Ruth Reichl scenario, though. I'm not sure in the current environment a former chef/owner of a restaurant -- someone with so many industry ties -- would be considered, and I'm not sure the Times actually wants another Ruth Reichl because a company man is easier to control. Plus I think she was a special case: today there are no equivalent candidates I can think of except Michael Bauer, and I believe he already passed up the opportunity.

[oakapple]

I think you're way off base with respect to public perception of Times critic anonymity. I talk to people all the time about this. Pretty much whenever I meet a new person and say what I do -- even though I just say I write about food -- they ask me if I wear disguises.

←

I'll concede that point, but I'm still not getting where "charade" comes from. All NYT critics have admitted that they are frequently recognized. All they are saying is that the 25% of the time they aren't recognized has some value (to the reader) by providing a sense (however imperfectly) of what the ordinary diner would experience. If you shed the attempts at anonymity, all that happens is that 25% becomes zero.

I doubt we'll see another Ruth Reichl scenario, though..... I'm not sure the Times actually wants another Ruth Reichl because a company man is easier to control. Plus I think she was a special case: today there are no equivalent candidates I can think of except Michael Bauer, and I believe he already passed up the opportunity.

←

I believe Reichl's immediately preceding job was as restaurant critic for the L. A. Times. Critics of that ilk (LA, SF, Chicago, Philly, Boston, Washington....) ought to be conisdered, although I say this without having researched the specific incumbents in each city.

[Nathan]

I haven't read the Barber article, but nobody has said the critic is recognized 100% of the time. It's more like 75% if we take the Asimov figure to be correct. I agree that we'll most likely see a replay of the Bruni and Grimes scenarios: someone from another department of the Times (either overseas or domestic) who knows little about the dining scene. I doubt we'll see another Ruth Reichl scenario, though. I'm not sure in the current environment a former chef/owner of a restaurant -- someone with so many industry ties -- would be considered, and I'm not sure the Times actually wants another Ruth Reichl because a company man is easier to control. Plus I think she was a special case: today there are no equivalent candidates I can think of except Michael Bauer, and I believe he already passed up the opportunity.

←

You should read it. (btw, I highly doubt the 75% figure when applied to say Bruni...he dines way too much at more casual places....I'd be surprised if a place like Franny's was ever looking for him...I buy when the 75% figure when it comes to three and four-stars...sure...but they're the places where critical anyonymity probably means the least).

when they spotted Grimes, the following occurred: sending out for extra ingredients, ordering extra flowers, for the next few weeks, ordering afternoon bread deliveries for the next few weeks, placing their best server solely on him (plus backup help), devoting the kitchen to his dishes, on an offnight when the dining room was near empty---calling up friends and family who lived close by and offering them freebies to come in immediately.

of course, the punch line was that they hadn't spotted Grimes. one lawyer received all of this attention on five visits. meanwhile, Grimes was eating there all along during the same period, unspotted. (the lawyer also got his name sent out as a Grimes alias...not doubt garnering him incredible attention elsewhere)

[Fat Guy]

So the bread at dinner is fresher when the restaurant is in critic-alert mode. Big deal.

There was recently a piece on NPR's "On the Media" about the Craig LaBan "outing" incident in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia Inquirer and LaBan were sued for defamation over a comment in a review. LaBan tried to wear a disguise at the videotaped deposition. The judge said no. Philadelphia Magazine then printed a photo of LaBan when covering the story. NPR "On the Media" had Larry Platt, editor of Philadelphia Magazine on and asked him to defend the decisions. Here are a few points he made:

BOB GARFIELD: Craig LaBan makes a living as a food critic. He has to go into restaurants and face the people whose work he is reviewing, so anonymity is very important to him. Can you tell me what journalistic purpose is served by printing his photograph?

LARRY PLATT: Sure. He's not really anonymous to begin with, by his own admission. Most of the restaurateurs in Philadelphia have posted in their kitchens photos of him. Media insiders, like myself, know what he looks like. The only group that doesn't know what he looks like are the readers and the diners . . . .

I had a conversation with him before we did this in which he said, yeah, all the major restaurateurs know what I look like. Some of the mom-and-pops don't, but it's easy to find out. I made three phone calls and was inundated with photos of him from kitchens around the city.

This whole question of Craig LaBan's anonymity is tied up with a lot of self-importance. I mean, he is not Valerie Plame. This is not an issue of national security. He's a guy who eats meals and writes about them. Most reviewers in the United States don't do so anonymously. Craig's predecessor at The Inquirer had her picture in the paper for 20-some-odd years.

. . . . Craig LaBan's anonymity has become something of a gimmick. I'll give you an example. Selling a book, a collection of his reviews, he had a public reading and showed up in elaborate disguise. For the deposition in this lawsuit, he showed up wearing a wig and sunglasses and speaking in a falsetto. The judge apparently made him lose the wig and speak in his normal voice.

And, like I said, we’re not talking about the state of the nation here, and we just felt why should we be complicit in other media's publicity stunts?

[The Naughti Literati]

Bruni tore Gramercy Park's Wakiya out the FRAME today!!! My goodness.

I gotta go read some more of your Turning the Tables: Asian dining thread, Fat Guy!

[Fat Guy]

Because it centers around a Portland, Oregon, story, we didn't introduce the discussion on this topic, however followers of this subject may be interested to read about the ethics challenge that Kevin Allman, a Portland-based writer and blogger, has introduced with respect to Eric Asimov's recent Portland restaurant story.

[ulterior epicure]

Today, Bruni's review of L'Impero and Alto was published; the two cobbled together. He gives L'Impero 2 stars and Alto gets 3.

I'm familiar with both only insofar as it was Conant's stage. However, I am not so experienced (having eaten at neither) as to know the difference... it was always my impression that L'Impero was the "elder" of the two?

Edited October 31, 2007 by ulterior epicure (log)

[Nathan]

L'Impero predated Alto.

[oakapple]

Today, Bruni's review of L'Impero and Alto was published; the two cobbled together.  He gives L'Impero 2 stars and Alto gets 3.

I'm familiar with both only insofar as it was Conant's stage.  However, I am not so experienced (having eaten at neither) as to know the difference... it was always my impression that L'Impero was the "elder" of the two?

←

L'Impero put Scott Conant on the culinary map when Eric Asimov awarded 3* in 2002. Alto, which came later, was designed to be more upscale than L'Impero. Anything less than 3* was going to be a major disappointment. Sure enough, Bruni gave 2*, and Eater put Alto on deathwatch. When I visited Alto, I thought it deserved 3*. To be fair, it's my understanding that Conant tweaked the concept quite a bit, so I wasn't sampling the same menu that Bruni did, but some of Bruni's complaints didn't make much sense.

Today's reviews rank Alto where it was always intended to be. In recent years, L'Impero has been somewhat off the culinary map, so perhaps 2* is indeed the correct rating. However, as Grub Street notes today, under Bruni the two-star rating is a kind of "limbo". You've got would-be three-star restaurants like L'Impero that are being penalized for poor performance, alongside $25-and-under one-star restaurants like Franny's that are being given a bonus for inexpensive excellence.

[Nathan]

once again: the Times does not divide restaurants into categories. there is no such thing as a "one star restaurant with two stars" in the Times system. inexpensive excellence is exactly what could garner a restaurant two stars (or more) under the Times system. I understand where this idea comes from (Michelin)...but it's simply not what the Times system is avowed to be (even if some previous reviewers did think that way -- I don't have the foggiest clue if any did or not).

[oakapple]

once again: the Times does not divide restaurants into categories.  there is no such thing as a "one star restaurant with two stars" in the Times system.  inexpensive excellence is exactly what could garner a restaurant two stars (or more) under the Times system.  I understand where this idea comes from (Michelin)...but it's simply not what the Times system is avowed to be (even if some previous reviewers did think that way -- I don't have the foggiest clue if any did or not).

←

I have no idea whether the system is indeed what you say it is. But it doesn't really matter, because critiques of that system (whether Bruni is following it faithfully or not) are the main topic of this thread.

But for the record, I believe I have accurately described the results Bruni has produced. To say whether he used the same thought process to arrive at those results would require us to be a mind-readers. Ninety-five percent of the time, Bruni does not overtly disclose the thought process that produced the rating. The outcome is obvious, but not how he arrived at it.

I do think it is obvious that he must, in a sense, be putting restaurants into categories, even if those categories are fluid, imprecise, or subconscious. It's simply unavoidable if you visit restaurants all the time and are trying to create some kind of pecking order among them.

Edited October 31, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

I don't put restaurants into categories and I eat in them all the time.

Bruni has explicitly described his thought process for assessing restaurants. so does the Times in a written policy.

personally, put differently, I have a real problem with the mindset that if a restauranteur dresses the waitstaff in tuxes, has expensive flower arrangements, low or no music, widely-spaced tables, and uses ossetra caviar and truffles (at least as options), and has high enough prices to keep the hoi polloi out...that therefore it's automatically guaranteed at least three stars...even if the food is tasteless.

while a restaurant with none of the above and not-delicate but awesome-tasting food can't get above one or maybe two stars.

I really really have a problem with that mindset. it's about class not food.

I want passion in my food -- food is ultimately a purely sensual activity...even when it has its cerebral aspects (they're not necessarily at odds)....and I get that passion from JG, Madame Sripaphai and Chang. that's food that in my book gets three or four stars. (yes, I think decor, service, wine lists and price matter....but those are minority factors...)

(and Bruni said something very similar)

[Jesikka]

(btw, I highly doubt the 75% figure when applied to say Bruni...he dines way too much at more casual places....I'd be surprised if a place like Franny's was ever looking for him...I buy when the 75% figure when it comes to three and four-stars...sure...but they're the places where critical anyonymity probably means the least).

A place like Franny's is DEFINITELY looking out for Bruni- at least as much as a place like Momofuku is.

[oakapple]

I don't put restaurants into categories and I eat in them all the time.

When you dine at an expensive Italian restaurant, I would think you're saying to yourself (if only subconsciously), "This is an expensive Italian restaurant. How do I feel about it, compared to other expensive Italian restaurants I've visited?"

Bruni, unlike you, knows he's being paid to execute a repetitive task every week. If he's like 99% of people, he has developed some kind of analytical framework for doing so.

Bruni has explicitly described his thought process for assessing restaurants. so does the Times in a written policy.

As I recall, all he said was that "the stars chart ever-increasing degrees of excitement," or something like that, which is not even what the Times's written explanation says.

personally, put differently, I have a real problem with the mindset that if a restauranteur dresses the waitstaff in tuxes, has expensive flower arrangements, low or no music, widely-spaced tables, and uses ossetra caviar and truffles (at least as options), and has high enough prices to keep the hoi polloi out...that therefore it's automatically guaranteed at least three stars...even if the food is tasteless.

I, for one, have never suggested that that is what the system is, or should be. I hope that no sensible person would propose otherwise.

...while a restaurant with none of the above and not-delicate but awesome-tasting food can't get above one or maybe two stars.

Nevertheless, that is the system we have. All of Frank's 4* reviews, and nearly all of his 3* reviews, have followed the traditional model, or something very much like it. He simply has to have additional "rules" beyond those published or acknowledged, or he could not have arrived at the ratings he did.

I want passion in my food -- food is ultimately a purely sensual activity...even when it has its cerebral aspects (they're not necessarily at odds)....and I get that passion from JG, Madame Sripaphai and Chang.  that's food that in my book gets three or four stars.  (yes, I think decor, service, wine lists and price matter....but those are minority factors...)

(and Bruni said something very similar)

←

But what Bruni didn't do was to award three or four stars to Sripraphai or Chang—yet, he seemed to adore their food. To explain this apparent anomaly, you have to conclude there are more rules than the Times's published explanation of the stars. Edited October 31, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

no, you just have to conclude that the lack of a wine list and a few too many clunkers in a massive menu reduced Sri a star and that he just didn't quite have the cojones to give Ssam Bar its deserved three stars (and to be fair, Ssam Bar is better now than it was then...and lunch does suck).

no, I really don't see why he must be operating on additional rules.

as for an expensive Italian restaurant...I simply decide whether it's worth the money, not worth the money, or so fricking good that it doesn't matter how expensive it is.

[oakapple]

no, you just have to conclude that the lack of a wine list and a few too many clunkers in a massive menu reduced Sri a star and that he just didn't quite have the cojones to give Ssam Bar its deserved three stars (and to be fair, Ssam Bar is better now than it was then...and lunch does suck).

←

It appears you agree with me that Bruni has additional criteria that he hasn't admitted to. We only disagree on what those rules are.

[Nathan]

if you count being worried about an outcry as an additional criteria....

[oakapple]

if you count being worried about an outcry as an additional criteria....

←

I've never gotten the sense that Bruni was worried about the outcry that would ensue after his ratings came out, have you?

[Nathan]

if you count being worried about an outcry as an additional criteria....

←

I've never gotten the sense that Bruni was worried about the outcry that would ensue after his ratings came out, have you?

←

I kind of wonder if he didn't with Ssam Bar.

it reads like a three star review.

[oakapple]

if you count being worried about an outcry as an additional criteria....

←

I've never gotten the sense that Bruni was worried about the outcry that would ensue after his ratings came out, have you?

←

I kind of wonder if he didn't with Ssam Bar.

it reads like a three star review.

←

But this happens all the time: people will say that the rating awarded to a restaurant is higher or lower than the tone of the review.

One fairly common scenario is where he's over-the-moon about a fairly casual place, but imposes a de facto two-star ceiling. Ssam Bar is far from being the only example of that. In 3½ years on the job, the Bar Room is the only restaurant that was allowed to pierce the two-star ceiling, without having most of the standard "trappings" of a standard luxury restaurant.

It happens at the other extreme, when he sounds like he practically hated a place, but nevertheless gives a star or even two stars.