Blogger gets comped at Le Cirque

[Nathan]

because a few of them actually have influence (though probably not as much as they think).

for example, the subject of this thread, the "Amateur Gourmet", although his culinary opinions are generally laughable, has a quite large readership. (even more curiously, the current "Amateur Gourmet" is not the original guy who started the blog...and who established its following)

Edited January 23, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[gingersweetiepie]

I thought a blog is an on line diary. Highly personal impressions and thoughts etc.

Here we have a discussion about a blog as though the writer was a professional restaurant critic.

Clearly this is an "amateur" who is playing restaurant critic and food writer.

Ethics? Credibility?

No one asks these things of a diary or a diarist.

As a personal diary, Amateur Gourmet's blog is one thing but why are we discussing it as though the blogger were writing serious restaurant criticism?

Why would anyone take it as such?

←

Consider the context in which the article was written: his entire point was that as a food blogger he wields a considerable amount of influence among tech-savvy foodies (Ha, how's that for a subdemographic?)

Also, the second review was written for Serious Eats, which I see as a website that strives for credibility.

Edited January 23, 2007 by gingersweetiepie (log)

[JohnL]

because a few of them actually have influence (though probably not as much as they think).

for example, the subject of this thread, the "Amateur Gourmet", although his culinary opinions are generally laughable, has a quite large readership.  (even more curiously, the current "Amateur Gourmet" is not the original guy who started the blog...and who established its following)

←

Just how much influence is dubious. I suspect many of the people who read blogs are also bloggers themselves.

Blogging at its most basic level is no different than expressing one's opinions in public--standing on a soapbox on a busy corner.

As you note, just about anyone can be the "amateur gourmet" in life or on the net. In fact millions of people would consider themselves "amateur gourmets."

The blog in question--works better as a diary--my adventures in eating--entertainment. I believe that anyone reading this as though the writer's opinions on food and restaurants is worth taking seriously, would be fooling themselves.

[Sneakeater]

But foodblogs don't all function the way you're saying, John. Look at oakapple's blog. It clearly reads like a set of reviews meant to be taken seriously, not a diary. It's not that different from Seymour Britchky's newsletter in the 80s, which was taken very seriously despite its not having been "traditonal media."

http://nyjournal.squarespace.com/journal/

I'm certainly not saying this to criticize oakapple in any way (I admire his blog). (And, for that matter, agree with his policy toward comps.)

Edited January 23, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[tommy]

I thought a blog is an on line diary. Highly personal impressions and thoughts etc.

a blog is whatever the author wants it to be. blogs are no longer just for 14 year-olds talking about what they did today. blog software is mainstream and nothing more or less than an online publishing tool.

as far as the content, if you dismiss the content of food blogs (or any blog for that matter) as nothing more than highly personal impressions, or their authors as attention-needing soapbox-standing amateurs, then you have to dismiss the content of egullet and its ilk, and the contributors, as they fall into the same category. i don't think it would be reasonble to dismiss the impact on sites like egullet, or blogs.

blogs routinely come up on top of google and other web searches. i think you underestimate how many people read blogs. that's not to say people have RSS feeds to thousands of blogs, but people are seeing, and reading, many.

Edited January 23, 2007 by tommy (log)

[JohnL]

But foodblogs don't all function the way you're saying, John.  Look at oakapple's blog.  It clearly reads like a set of reviews meant to be taken seriously, not a diary.  It's not that different from Seymour Britchky's newsletter in the 80s, which was taken very seriously despite its not having been "traditonal media."

http://nyjournal.squarespace.com/journal/

I'm certainly not saying this to criticize oakapple in any way (I admire his blog).  (And, for that  matter, agree with his policy toward comps.)

←

I wonder just how foodblogs are supposed to function.

Some are basically websites some are true diaries and some are combinations of the two.

I am not against food blogs and I am not saying that there are blogs and bloggers that are not worthwhile reading.

Here's what I am saying though.

I would like to see all blogs clearly state what their purpose is and why anyone should read them. A mission statement.

I would also like to see a biography of the blogger.

It is amazing how many bloggers seem to want to work behind (notice I did not say hide) a handle.

It is hard to take seriously someone who uses a pseudonym.

I will always wonder why, if this person's views are of value they do not charge money for them.

There's a nice quip about the value of free advice.

I don't necessarily hold this against them but it raises the question.

There are some extremely knowledgeable amateurs (in jut about every subject under the sun) who prefer to remain amateurs.

My biggest fear over the ease of access the internet offers is that we often are celebrating everyone's views as equal--everybody's a star!

There is a dumbing down taking place. The upside is that information and opinion is generally a good thing.

Your comparison to Britchky is not a good one, there's a big difference--I believe Britchky charged money for his newsletter. Today, there are a lot of people who think they are Britchky's and by writing like him or performing the same task they believe they should be taken as seriously as Britchky. The only real jury is the public and I am afraid we have lowered our standards. toiday--"It's all good" --is used too often and too seriously.

[oakapple]

I would like to see all blogs clearly state what their purpose is and why anyone should read them. A mission statement.

I would also like to see a biography of the blogger.

It is amazing how many bloggers seem to want to work behind (notice I did not say hide) a handle.

It is hard to take seriously someone who uses a pseudonym.

I will always wonder why, if this person's views are of value they do not charge money for them.

←

I wonder — no offense intended — how any of the above differs from the eGullet posts of a guy named JohnL?

JohnL's biography and mission statement aren't posted here. He is using a "handle" (specifically, JohnL). He is not charging us for the previlege of reading what he has to say. Of course, this is true of most eGullet Society members, so I am not singling out JohnL for any reason, except that he's the one with a different standard for bloggers.

I think tommy (another anonymous eGullet Society member posting under a handle who has not shared his bio or mission statement, or charged money for his insights):

as far as the content, if you dismiss the content of food blogs (or any blog for that matter) as nothing more than highly personal impressions, or their authors as attention-needing soapbox-standing amateurs, then you have to dismiss the content of egullet and its ilk, and the contributors, as they fall into the same category.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting JohnL or tommy should have provided any of these details. What they've done is just fine. I'm just wondering why a blogger would be different.

For the record, my real name is on both my blog and this post, which is probably very foolish of me. I don't feel obligated to post my bio, but thanks to the power of google, anyone who wanted to could probably figure out a good deal of it. My mission statement is whatever I want it to be. Because I am not charging for what I do, I don't feel under any obligation to have the same mission tomorrow that I have today. (Not that I am suggesting that anyone would pay for it, even if I did charge.)

Edited January 23, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

if your point is that most food bloggers don't have the foggiest clue what they're talking about -- I agree.

so? the same is true of many restaurant critics.

although I would certainly agree that the average level of expertise among restaurant critics is higher than the average level of expertise among food bloggers.

so?

the only ones I bother to read are ones that I am convinced actually know what they're talking about.

sure, the rest is noise -- but then so is Zagat. a lot of people are going to go by it anyway. not much we can do.

I fail to see your point.

[gingersweetiepie]

I would like to see all blogs clearly state what their purpose is and why anyone should read them. A mission statement.

I would also like to see a biography of the blogger.

It is amazing how many bloggers seem to want to work behind (notice I did not say hide) a handle.

It is hard to take seriously someone who uses a pseudonym.

←

I think that depends. Plenty of bloggers in every industry go by pseudonyms (aka Mr. Brownstone in real estate or the food nerds) specifically because of the amount of credible inside information they have. Pseudonyms, which I'm sometimes apt to think are lame, are a way for people to get information and news without the informer putting his real day job and reputation in jeopardy. If a line cook had juicy gossip about which four star kitchens are filthy and which chefs are sexually harrassing their waitstaff- stuff which, let's admit, plenty of us love to read - and started a blog under his real name, that guy would be blacklisted for life. Hence the pseudonym. A little part of me thinks that's fine. But now I'm getting WAY off topic...

[JohnL]

I thought a blog is an on line diary. Highly personal impressions and thoughts etc.

Here we have a discussion about a blog as though the writer was a professional restaurant critic.

Clearly this is an "amateur" who is playing restaurant critic and food writer.

Ethics? Credibility?

No one asks these things of a diary or a diarist.

As a personal diary, Amateur Gourmet's blog is one thing but why are we discussing it as though the blogger were writing serious restaurant criticism?

Why would anyone take it as such?

←

Consider the context in which the article was written: his entire point was that as a food blogger he wields a considerable amount of influence among tech-savvy foodies (Ha, how's that for a subdemographic?)

Also, the second review was written for Serious Eats, which I see as a website that strives for credibility.

←

OK.

Serious Eats does some good things--It is not a blog. it is an online magazine. It is much like eGullet in many repsects.

Adam Roberts writes a column. I still see little in any of his writing that indicates any credentials to write about food other than he eats. If that's not important to you fine. I do see him as a diarist chronicling his experiences in restaurants (mostly). If someone wants to use his experiences as guidelines for their own dining out adventures fine as well--I ain't one of them.

Also--I find bloggers incessantly concerned with how powerful they are or how influential they are to be a bit silly. One either is or isn't.

Again--there's too much confusion in what a blog is exactly. I prefer the basic online diary.

These online magazines/sites are little different than any other magazines--they are online rather than at newstands.

[tommy]

Serious Eats does some good things--It is not a blog. it is an online magazine....

These online magazines/sites are little different than any other magazines--they are online rather than at newstands.

←

amatuer gourmet writes for Seriouseats. some of seriouseats' content is supplied by people who also have blogs, who are not "professional". Seriouseats is published using blogging software, or something that emulates the look-and-feel of blogging software. how is it then different from the contributors' blogs? is it more relevant?

Again--there's too much confusion in what a blog is exactly. I prefer the basic online diary.

are you saying that you prefer the defintion "online diary" as the definition of "blog"? i can understand why you might think that's an accurate definition, especially if you have little experience reading or publishing blogs, and I certainly can't debate a preference, but i don't think it's very accurate. again, a blog is whatever the author makes it.

to go back to an original point in this thread, the Amateur Gourmet got a free meal from Le Cirque. indeed, behold the power of the blog.

Edited January 23, 2007 by tommy (log)

[JohnL]

I would like to see all blogs clearly state what their purpose is and why anyone should read them. A mission statement.

I would also like to see a biography of the blogger.

It is amazing how many bloggers seem to want to work behind (notice I did not say hide) a handle.

It is hard to take seriously someone who uses a pseudonym.

I will always wonder why, if this person's views are of value they do not charge money for them.

←

I wonder — no offense intended — how any of the above differs from the eGullet posts of a guy named JohnL?

JohnL's biography and mission statement aren't posted here. He is using a "handle" (specifically, JohnL). He is not charging us for the previlege of reading what he has to say. Of course, this is true of most eGullet Society members, so I am not singling out JohnL for any reason, except that he's the one with a different standard for bloggers.

I think tommy (another anonymous eGullet Society member posting under a handle who has not shared his bio or mission statement, or charged money for his insights):

as far as the content, if you dismiss the content of food blogs (or any blog for that matter) as nothing more than highly personal impressions, or their authors as attention-needing soapbox-standing amateurs, then you have to dismiss the content of egullet and its ilk, and the contributors, as they fall into the same category.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting JohnL or tommy should have provided any of these details. What they've done is just fine. I'm just wondering why a blogger would be different.

For the record, my real name is on both my blog and this post, which is probably very foolish of me. I don't feel obligated to post my bio, but thanks to the power of google, anyone who wanted to could probably figure out a good deal of it. My mission statement is whatever I want it to be. Because I am not charging for what I do, I don't feel under any obligation to have the same mission tomorrow that I have today. (Not that I am suggesting that anyone would pay for it, even if I did charge.)

←

There's a big difference.

This is a website forum where it is clear that various people are exchanging thoughts and ideas and opinions.

It is a bunch of people with similar interests talking.

The standards are those of eGullet. the very fact that it is a dialog means that opinions are part of a fluid dialog and as such are challenged (as you are doing here) and expounded upon.

If I say something ridiculous or present as fact something that is not--there is a strong likelihood that I will quickly be challenged or corrected. If I am perpetrating some fraud or misrepresentation chances are I will also be exposed.

A blog is not a forum or discussion group. Nor is it a dialog. It is a published opinion. As you indicate you need to provide no reason for publishing it nor do you need any standards self imposed or otherwise. You can write what you want and you ask nothing of the reader.

This is fine IMOP--your blog is what it is!

I have no problem with that.

What I am getting at (or trying to) is, I think that we are often accepting blogs as on par with other writing like professional criticism. For the most part, many of these blogs are opinions by friends and neighbors or just others who feel they have something to say. The writers often have little or nothing at stake and can say anything they want. I would say that more than a little skepticism is justified.

I guess my problem is not with bloggers but rather with readers. We are relaxing our standards and our skepticism. Not too long ago there was a thread about wine blogs. Myriad wine blogs exist with thousands of tasting notes that are poorly written by people who obviously have little talent or knowledge of a complex subject. Ill supported opinions are tossed out and many of these bloggers are basically incompetent. Yet they present themselves as if they were the equal to professional wine writers and worse readers often accept them as just that. Thus the dumbing down. A lot of the bloggers operate under the guise of being the everyman's answer to the professionals or the anti establishment. There is certainly a need for this but it is readers that need to decide the validity of what they read on line (or really anywhere).

It is one thing, for eg, to criticize, say, Frank Bruni, it is quite another to set one's self up as the equal of Frank Bruni in doing what he does and to expect that readers also make that valuation without even minimal skepticism.

Edited January 23, 2007 by JohnL (log)

[Nathan]

what's your point?

that most blogs are written by the ignorant?

sure. so?

[Fat Guy]

John, I'm curious: you've been throwing around the term "professional critics" and variants. How would you define that term? Do you think it has to do with credentials/qualifications? If so, what credentials/qualifications do you think Frank Bruni has that the average blogger doesn't have? Or is it simply that the information costs money? If so, I'd point out that the New York Times restaurant reviews are available for free online. So is ABC World News Tonight on television, for that matter. There are ads, but many blogs also carry ads. Or is it that the writer gets paid? If so, why does that matter? Does the fact that Adam Platt gets paid to write his amateur restaurant reviews in any way distinguish them from unpaid amateur reviews?

[JohnL]

John, I'm curious: you've been throwing around the term "professional critics" and variants. How would you define that term? Do you think it has to do with credentials/qualifications? If so, what credentials/qualifications do you think Frank Bruni has that the average blogger doesn't have? Or is it simply that the information costs money? If so, I'd point out that the New York Times restaurant reviews are available for free online. So is ABC World News Tonight on television, for that matter. There are ads, but many blogs also carry ads. Or is it that the writer gets paid? If so, why does that matter? Does the fact that Adam Platt gets paid to write his amateur restaurant reviews in any way distinguish them from unpaid amateur reviews?

←

First, I am not attempting to disparage blogging. There are benefits to easy access to the internet for writers as well as the audience.

I am also attempting to adhere to some definition of "blog" rooted in on line diary or personal experience. it seems that blog is often used to describe something far greater. many of these so called blogs are really web sites or are part of websites that go far beyond personal opinion.

So, anyone can be a blogger. There is no criteria, no training and more importantly, no oversight, no code of ethics no anything no accountability, no peer review. Anyone can simply post anything they want. There is reason enough to approach even mainstream media that has all these things with some skepticism so I fail to see how one can not be very skeptical when confronting a blog.

I am more familiar with wine sites and blogging--there was a lively thread here a while back. Daniel Rogov and I seemed to agree that the proliferation of wine blogs was contributing to a dumbing down of wine writing and wine appreciation in general. this is provable--one need only look at the quality of tasting notes. I believe that this applies to food/restaurant criticism/writing. Blogs are viewed by many as equal to or better than mainstream media (in truth some are). It all comes down to accountability. i would recommend looking at blogging and journalism in Wikipedia, an entity that experienced first hand how lack of accountability can lead to problems--when free access leads to "just anyone" posting something.

[Nathan]

"so I fail to see how one can not be very skeptical when confronting a blog."

I don't think anyone disputes this in the slightest.

[JohnL]

"so I fail to see how one can not be very skeptical when confronting a blog."

I don't think anyone disputes this in the slightest.

←

That's all I have been trying to say!

I apologize if I haven't been clear--hey I am no "professional"!!!

Really, I have a lot of respect for anyone who puts their opinions or views on the line.

Amateur Gourmet is IMOP credible as someone who is writing about a restaurant experience as a personal experience. He is far less credible as a critic of restaurants.

The Le Cirque piece was more interesting about him (and his parents) more than it was about Le Cirque.--to get back on topic.

[Sneakeater]

[oops. wrong thread.]

Edited January 24, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)