Let's Talk LaBan

[Alonna Smith]

As mrbig says, there should be one tomorrow.  And older ones are archived here.  So I suspect he was just away the last couple of weeks.

←

On the last chat he mentioned being "down the shore." I found where they've archived many the restaurant chats. The link above is just for the last one or two.

[MarketStEl]

Not to mention they are party to the suit in addition to LeBan.  But the issue of how to cover stories about media and how they are covered is an interesting one. For a current example of this outside of the dining world you might look at how the Wall Street Journal has covered how Newscorp is trying to buy the WSJ (and all of the Dow Jones media companies.)  They are relying on outside coverage and are making sure they are not the first one to break a story for fear of looking like they are in possession of some non public information.

←

A later post makes the relevant point that the Inquirer as well as LaBan is a defendant in the suit.

However, the above analogy is not correct. I don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, but a friend of mine who does has been regularly feeding me links to Wall Street Journal Online stories about the possible sale of Dow Jones to News Corp. Almost all of these links are to stories -- often feature-length -- written by WSJ staff that appeared in the print edition.

Edited to add: They may, however, be waiting until items move over the wires before running their own stories. However, one of the leading business news wires is Dow Jones' own, so I doubt that they really could rely on the AP to cover their story for them.

Edited July 4, 2007 by MarketStEl (log)

[Mummer]

Seems he's been unmasked by Philadelphia magazine

KYW Outing article

[Vadouvan]

The new issue of an area monthly magazine contains the picture of a local newspaper food critic who had been trying to keep what he looks like a secret.

Philadelphia magazine editor Larry Platt says he doubts that printing the photo will damage the effectiveness of Inquirer restaurant reviewer Craig LaBan, inasmuch as what he looks like has been an open secret among the area's leading restaurants anyway.

 

Platt says LaBan's likeness came to a head recently:

"He is now party in a news story -- a lawsuit -- and we generally show what protagonists in news stories look like."

LaBan is being sued for libel by Main Line eatery "Chops," and although opinion pieces like reviews are normally shielded by the First Amendment, in this case the restaurant alleges that LaBan got a fact wrong in his uncomplimentary mention of its food.

Platt says that makes LaBan subject to having his photo in the media, same as anybody else:

"We're not talking about Valeria Plame here. We're talking about someone who eats meals and writes about them. And if someone wants to say who that is, they can."

 

While most reporters are not anonymous, a restaurant reviewer may want to be, so the kitchen and staff don't upgrade their treatment for him when he slips in as a customer.

Interesting rationale by Larry Platt.

A bit absurd.....but he is right !

Even if the leading restaurants know who he is, how about new ones ?

He doesnt exactly re-review old ones.

Philadelphia magazine reviews restaurants with anonymous reviewers either with pseudonyms or great attempts at anonymity.

I wonder if this means the inquirer will be doing a story on Maria Gallagher.

Rather interesting to see food journalism implode on itself.

Edited August 21, 2007 by Vadouvan (log)

[philadining]

just seems like bad karma to me...

[Holly Moore]

Anonymity is just one approach to reviewing a restaurant. Anonymity is not essential to writing an accurate, impartial review. As I have argued elsewhere it may not be the best approach.

I have also wondered in this thread if a reviewer who maintains that his anonymity is essential to doing his job well should resign in the event he is no longer anonymous.

[Vadouvan]

Who told me he did in Nawlings....?

[Rich Pawlak]

Philadelphia magazine reviews restaurants with anonymous reviewers either with pseudonyms or great attempts at anonymity.

I wonder if this means the inquirer will be doing a story on Maria Gallagher.

Rather interesting to see food journalism implode on itself.

←

Edited August 22, 2007 by Rich Pawlak (log)

[serpentine]

Philadelphia Magazine published the article online.

[Vadouvan]

"refined posturing"

How about reading e-gullet a bit more slowly.

Mr Volk doesn't even get his story right.

Gordon *hated* Amada as I recall, I merely agreed that foie/cabrales/filet mignon was just silly.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Vadouvan (log)

[Tim Dolan]

Nice to see so many EGer's getting some ink. I thought Zack Stalberg's quote was amusing. Does a guy who sings about cheeseburgers dressed in a Zorro mask really take himself "too fucking seriously"? I think it's exactly the opposite. And not for nothing, but from the picture I think LaBan is a pretty generic-looking guy. I don't think he has much to worry about.

Edit:

It's always interesting to see the spin a story gets when most of the info comes from one side.

Edited August 22, 2007 by Tim Dolan (log)

[dagordon]

"refined posturing"       

How about reading e-gullet a bit more slowly.

Mr Volk doesn't even get his story right.

Gordon *hated* Amada as I recall, I merely agreed that foie/cabrales/filet mignon was just silly.

Gee whiz.

←

Um, yeah. I've already emailed Steve Volk asking for a correction.

[KatieLoeb]

In the end, has anyone actually addressed whether Mr. Laban has corrected his libelous claim that his lunchtime steak frite was a strip steak?? If he mis-wrote that, was informed of his error and refused to print a retraction and/or apology, I don't think the suit is as meritless as everyone says. He negatively miscategorized something fundamental to the restaurant's menu and livelihood. He refused to fix that. Chops will stay open (or close) on it's own merits or flaws foodwise, but something like that in print could clearly be damaging to business. Why on earth wouldn't Laban just print a retraction and be done with it?

Edited August 22, 2007 by KatieLoeb (log)

[MarketStEl]

Nice to see so many EGer's getting some ink.  I thought Zack Stalberg's quote was amusing.  Does a guy who sings about cheeseburgers dressed in a Zorro mask really take himself "too fucking seriously"?  I think it's exactly the opposite.  And not for nothing, but from the picture I think LaBan is a pretty generic-looking guy.  I don't think he has much to worry about.

Edit:

It's always interesting to see the spin a story gets when most of the info comes from one side.

←

I think it's more the show LaBan makes of protecting his anonymity more than the desirability of remaining so that Stalberg was referencing with his "takes himself too fucking seriously" comment. That Zorro mask was part of the show, even if the haiku about the cheeseburger and the song it spawned clearly indicate LaBan has a sense of humor. Or wit. Or something like that.

After all, as Volk said, if his picture's already appeared in two local publications, no matter how small their circulations, can you really say he is still anonymous?

I told Steve Volk that I thought that Plotkin didn't have a leg to stand on, on the very First Amendment grounds he mentions in his story, but that indeed doesn't cover the inaccurate characterization of the steak he ate. And yet even here I don't think that Plotkin can seriously claim that it was the misrepresentation that caused him to lose business; I strongly suspect that customers stayed away because LaBan called his meal there "expensive and disappointing," his salad "soggy and sour" and his steak -- whatever cut it was -- "miserably tough and fatty."

Somehow, I don't think the following correction would have mollified him:

In his brief review of Chops on [date], restaurant critic Craig LaBan wrote that he ate a "miserably tough and fatty strip steak" at the restaurant. Actually, he ate a miserably tough and fatty steak frites. The Inquirer regrets the error.

On those grounds, I stand by my unused original statement.

However: Even if the piece is basically a plea for sympathy for Plotkin, I think Volk did touch on something important with his closing sentences:

Food is an increasingly important part of Philadelphia’s identity. It is a means by which those dedicated to eating its finest variations seek to distinguish themselves from one another. But once upon a time, food was also celebrated for its power to bring us together.

I see signs of both these uses of food on this board and elsewhere. I think it's important that we give primacy to the latter.

--Sandy, wondering why philafoodie and I were mentioned but not quoted in the article; what are we emblematic of, other than maybe being addicted to food or online discussion boards and blogs?

[serpentine]

Food is an increasingly important part of Philadelphia’s identity. It is a means by which those dedicated to eating its finest variations seek to distinguish themselves from one another. But once upon a time, food was also celebrated for its power to bring us together.

Warm fuzzies to bring the article to a close on a cliched "positive note." Yawn. Why can't we all just get along, Mr. Volk? Uh, because the star of your article is suing. Also, "bringing people together" needn't mean "agreeing."

Sandy, I believe you and Philafoodie were cited, as you speculate, to give additional examples of Philadelphia's "food community." Apparently Mr. Volk didn't find any of your comments sensational enough to print. Perhaps you two should bicker more to provide insta-source material for Philadelphia Magazine writers.

In the end, has anyone actually addressed whether Mr. Laban has corrected his libelous claim that his lunchtime steak frite was a strip steak?? If he mis-wrote that, was informed of his error and refused to print a retraction and/or apology, I don't think the suit is as meritless as everyone says

Erroneous, perhaps, but we don't know that the claim is libelous. Isn't that the whole point of this lawsuit? Anyway, LaBan said that the waiter referred to it as a strip steak. Perhaps Mr. Plotkin should sue the waiter.

Edited August 22, 2007 by serpentine (log)

[philadining]

In the end, has anyone actually addressed whether Mr. Laban has corrected his libelous claim that his lunchtime steak frite was a strip steak??  If he mis-wrote that, was informed of his error and refused to print a retraction and/or apology, I don't think the suit is as meritless as everyone says.  He negatively miscategorized something fundamental to the restaurant's menu and livelihood.  He refused to fix that.  Chops will stay open (or close) on it's own merits or flaws foodwise, but something like that in print could clearly be damaging to business.  Why on earth wouldn't Laban just print a retraction and be done with it? 

←

I don't think it's at all clear whether LaBan made a mistake or not. The initial contention from Chops was that he had a steak sandwich, then when LaBan produced a receipt for a "Steak Frites" then suddenly Chops was not so sure of what he had ordered. As the Philly Mag article says:

The meat Plotkin serves as a luncheon steak frites for $15 — whether culled from a strip or a rib eye — is far less impressive than and prepared differently from the New York strip he serves for dinner, priced over $30

Do we know LaBan didn't get a strip steak with fries? Do we know what the waiter told him? There are two different accounts of this, but I'm sure LaBan knows the difference between a strip steak and a rib eye. OK, it's not "The Strip Steak" on the dinner menu. But did he get a piece of strip steak for lunch? Sounds like it's entirely possible. Do we have any reason to believe that LaBan was making things up when he said it was tough and fatty? So his mention of "a miserably tough and fatty strip steak" could very well be correct.

Do the owners see a major distinction? Sure, but that doesn't mean that LaBan was wrong. And shame on chops for serving a crappy steak at lunch, whatever it's called.

Edited August 23, 2007 by philadining (log)

[Vadouvan]

It's his word against the waiters, they wont be able to prove willfull intentional malice on Laban's part, the suit is a symptom of possible egomania, if anything at this point the plaintiffs just look douchier everyday this continues.

Opening the door for frivolous lawsuits will hurt restaurants in the long run, what if restaurants are eventually forced to post caloric/nutritional info on menu items, we all know they wont be accurate, will customers be allowed to sue too ?

The whole thing is just silly.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Vadouvan (log)

[monavano]

Philadelphia magazine reviews restaurants with anonymous reviewers either with pseudonyms or great attempts at anonymity.

I wonder if this means the inquirer will be doing a story on Maria Gallagher.

Rather interesting to see food journalism implode on itself.

←

I have heard from a very reliable source that Maria Gallagher has left Philadelphia Magazine, as of the current issue.

←

[Rich Pawlak]

But Washington, DC is the kind of place where the face of Tom Sietsema, the WaPo restaurant critic, is fairly well known, and no one seems to mind.

[KatieLoeb]

So what I've managed to cull from this discussion and a few offline ones as well is:

a) Laban was told he was served a strip steak by the waitstaff.

b) He reported that he was a served a strip steak as the cut of his Steak Frites.

c) When informed that he'd made an error he refused to issue a retraction because both his receipt stated he'd had a strip steak and the (possibly misinformed) waitstaff had also stated the same.

The problem here seems twofold. Obviously there's no level of consistency or staff training backing up what the waiter's best guess as to what you're eating might be on any given day at Chops. Also, Mr. Laban chose not to take the path of least resistance and simply issue the harmless retraction and be done with all this nonsense before it snowballed in a cartoon-like manner into this silly lawsuit.

Pfft. This is really absurd.

Edited August 25, 2007 by KatieLoeb (log)

[MarketStEl]

Yeah, but Plotkin still doesn't have a leg to stand on, because the damage was caused by the protected expression of opinion, not the inaccurate description of the steak. Edited to add: Maybe $1 in damages for the misrepresentation, but that's it.

Edited August 24, 2007 by MarketStEl (log)

[matthewj]

This whole escapade is goofy. I mean the whole article in the Philadelphia magazines seems to be a little sour grapes on the part of Plotkins. How many people in the restuarant business do not work 12-14 hours a day?

The issue at hand seemed to bother me though on a technicality. A New York strip steak. First off a NY strip for steak frites at lunch. I would be pissed off that I did not get a hanger, flat iron, or bavette. But that is besides the point. A New York strip is a Strip loin cut. No?

No where in Namps does it refer to a new york strip cut of meat. Isn't New York strip a marketing name. Such as Chilean sea bass, and or Black Cod. Not really names at all just cleaver marketing tools to make them sell well. So technically speaking it could be argued that the New York strip could be anything.

The other thing about the article that bothered me a little was twofold. One, if Alex Plotkin was championing his quality index, why did he rattle his US Foods sabre. I do not know about you but I get my milk and dry goods from US foods. IF they have a high end USDA prime cut section I do not know about please tell me. I get my steak from a steak guy.

Second I am not sure why the article spent so much time harping on his costuming, when I believe ruth reichl and or Mimi sheraton both Donned wigs and such to review restaurants in New York. So his Zorro costumes although a bit extreme is not that far off base. Some one was quoted in the article saying that he takes himself too seriously. At least someone does, or we would not be having this blog.

Edited August 24, 2007 by matthewj (log)

[Capaneus]

I believe Ruth Reichl's wig collection had the most fame among NY food critics'. But it's a common enough practice.

As to the suit, I find it amazing that it hasn't been thrown out of court yet. I wonder if all the publicity is making the judge a bit cautious.

[dagordon]

A New York strip is a Strip loin cut. No? 

No where in Namps does it refer to a new york strip cut of meat.  Isn't New York strip a marketing name.  Such as Chilean sea bass, and or Black Cod.  Not really names at all just cleaver marketing tools to make them sell well.  So technically speaking it could be argued that the New York strip could be anything. 

←

I don't think this would fly... I don't know how long the term "New York strip" has been around or how it came into use but yeah, it's understood to be a strip loin cut.

For example look under "Strip Loin Lexicon" here:

http://www.beeffoodservice.com/Cuts/Info.aspx?Code=41

The first entry is "New York Strip"

As far as Chops' meat itself -- the pictures in the article (they're bigger in the print version, where they're a two-page title spread) aren't terribly flattering. I don't know if these are even pictures of Chops' actual meat or just generic pictures of steak for a steak article, but the meat has virtually no marbling...

[Rich Pawlak]

One WOULD think that a food critic of Laban's prominence would 1)take better notes, 2)double check his notes and 3) have the professionalism to issue a retraction/apology/correction. These three actions are the very LEAST he should have done to avoid appearing to be the pompous ass he has now become.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Rich Pawlak (log)