Let's Talk LaBan

[dagordon]

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.

←

Hasn't philadining already covered this -- is there any credible evidence that Laban actually made a mistake?

The only evidence, it seems, is Plotkin's assertion that Laban was served a rib eye, not a strip. But Plotkin originally claimed that Laban was served a steak sandwich without the bread, and then apparently changed his story when Laban was able to produce a receipt showing that he got a steak frites.

So Plotkin has lost all credibility, imho.

[philadining]

Again, there's some debate among the various involved parties, but Rich, let's say he did what you suggest:

1) Take better notes: He contends the waiter told him the steak on the plate was a strip steak. He surreptitiously notes this immediately so as to not be confused later. Result - complaint about crappy strip steak.

2) Double-check his notes: yep, strip steak. Result - complaint about crappy strip steak.

3) Have the professionalism to issue a retraction/apology/correction: retract/apologize-for/correct WHAT?

It seem he could have clarified that he was referring to a lunch steak, but I find it hard to imagine that such a clarification would have calmed the waters.

Publications tend to reserve corrections for black-and-white statements of fact: sorry, we got the address wrong; sorry, we mis-identified the chef; or more to the point, sorry, i didn't actually have a strip steak. But it seems at least very likely that he DID have a strip steak.

It would be impossible for any publication to print retractions/corrections/clarifications every time that the subject of an article disagrees with a writer's interpretation of something.

It also strikes me as amazing that Chops does not seem to be contenting that the steak was actually better than was indicated, simply that it was a different cut of meat. Sure, it was tough and fatty, but just don't call it a strip steak!

[mrbigjas]

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...

all i know is that if i got a steak and it had the marbling that steak has on the first page here, i would be seriously freaked out.

[philadining]

Gee, I usually see faces in my steaks... doesn't everybody?!?!

[Mummer]

Gee, I usually see faces in my steaks... doesn't everybody?!?!

←

I'm looking for one with a religious icon so I can put it on eBay. Then I wouldn't care that it were tough and fatty.

[Vadouvan]

I dont think this can be simply blamed on Laban being a "pompous ass", certainly he is no more of a pompous ass than any other food reviewer in this town, he simply stood his ground over an egomanaical restauranteur as he should. There is no willful malice and retractions are meaningless, what's he supposed to say ?

"I profusely apologise, the lame steak I ate which the owner of the restaurant admittedly agrees is lame and serves regularly, though lame was not a New York Strip."

[philadining]

The publication of LaBan's photo in the article raised a few interesting questions.

First: did having the photo there enhance the content of the article in any way? I guess it proves the writer's contention that his photo is easily obtained, but otherwise, I'm not sure I see the point.

Second: if we presume it's in there because LaBan is a major character in this soap opera, why is there not a photo of Plotkin? Or is there in the print version?

(edited to add: there is indeed a similar-sized photo of Plotkin in the print version of the magazine, as well as a creepy beef-portrait to match LaBan's. Why those are not on-line, I can't imagine.)

Third: and this might be the most interesting one, does the publication of the photo remove a card from Plotkin's hand? It seemed pretty clear that the potential for forcing a public appearance, and of having a videotaped deposition made public, was a not-too-subtle threat. I'm sure they meant for this to be a lever for forcing a retraction or a settlement of some sort. Interestingly, despite the article's fairly hostile tone toward LaBan, the publication of the photo actually hurts Plotkin's side more. If the case goes forward, LaBan might have to make more public appearances, or have his likeness displayed in open court via video. But now, so what?

I'm fairly confident that LaBan can continue to do his job effectively regardless. As the article implied, most major restaurants have at least some idea of what he looks like. Whether they're going from an old photo or merely a description whispered amongst restauranteurs, it's not as if he's never spotted. More to the point, they could have his current driver's license photo posted poster-size on the door from the kitchen, and the fact is that many hosts, managers and servers still wouldn't notice him, it's just how people are when they're busy.

That said, I'm sure being less likely to be noticed has allowed him to be more effective than if he were universally recognized, and having a photo widely published doesn't do us, the dining public, any favors. Additionally, it strikes me as professionally discourteous for a journalist to out him if he desired to remain anonymous, unless there were a compelling reason to reveal his likeness. I didn't see one, but that's just me.

Edited August 25, 2007 by philadining (log)

[philadining]

Also, I'm not sure it makes any difference, but the exact verbiage from the original offending review was:

"a miserably tough and fatty strip steak"

LaBan did not use the term "New York Strip Steak," as Chops apparently does to identify the piece of meat they are so proud of on their dinner menu. Is that a relevant distinction when it comes down to a lawsuit? I haven't a clue. Maybe we'll find out...

[MarketStEl]

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...

←

1) Where I come from, we much prefer the second term in the Strip Loin Lexicon.

2) As was noted in subsequent posts, that photo is actually altered -- it's an illustration-cum-caricature.

Gee, I usually see faces in my steaks... doesn't everybody?!?!

←

I'm looking for one with a religious icon so I can put it on eBay. Then I wouldn't care that it were tough and fatty.

←

I wouldn't get my hopes up too high, Charlie. There were no takers for that eggplant slice.

The publication of LaBan's photo in the article raised a few interesting questions.

First: did having the photo there enhance the content of the article in any way? I guess it proves the writer's contention that his photo is easily obtained, but otherwise, I'm not sure I see the point. 

Second: if we presume it's in there because LaBan is a major character in this soap opera, why is there not a photo of Plotkin? Or is there in the print version? 

Third: and this might be the most interesting one, does the publication of the photo remove a card from Plotkin's hand?  It seemed pretty clear that the potential for forcing a public appearance, and of having a videotaped deposition made public, was a not-too-subtle threat. I'm sure they meant for this to be a lever for forcing a retraction or a settlement of some sort. Interestingly, despite the article's fairly hostile tone toward LaBan, the publication of the photo actually hurts Plotkin's side more. If the case goes forward, LaBan might have to make more public appearances, or have his likeness displayed in open court via video.  But now, so what?

I'm fairly confident that LaBan can continue to do his job effectively regardless. As the article  implied, most major restaurants have at least some idea of what he looks like. Whether they're going from an old photo or merely a description whispered amongst restauranteurs, it's not as if he's never spotted. More to the point, they could have his current driver's license photo posted poster-size on the door from the kitchen, and the fact is that many hosts, managers and servers still wouldn't notice him, it's just how people are when they're busy.

That said, I'm sure being less likely to be noticed has allowed him to be more effective than if he were universally recognized, and having a photo widely published doesn't do us, the dining public, any favors. Additionally, it strikes me as professionally discourteous for a journalist to out him if he desired to remain anonymous, unless there were a compelling reason to reveal his likeness. I didn't see one, but that's just me.

←

I've done stories in years past where I was acquainted in some way with one of the parties involved in a dispute and sympathetic to the acquaintance's point of view. I even ran one after the other party's spokesperson flat out told me, "There's no story there"; I disagreed and exercised my right as a columnist to run the story I thought was there.

The story here isn't as big as Steve Volk made it out to be -- but he really wanted to tell another story, which he worked into the spaces between the particulars of the lawsuit. It's about foodies in the pejorative sense of the term: The people who, when they speak of heirloom tomatoes, give off the air that they keep theirs parked next to the Bentley in their driveway. Only snobs like these, Volk implies, would care so much about a lawsuit filed by a restaruant owner whose pride has been wounded against the most influential restaurant critic in the region.

Of course, you can pick up from some of the direct quotes that the people in the business -- including the restaurateur's suppliers -- don't share this view. But poor Craig LaBan, who goes to these extremes to preserve his value as the diner's advocate for no good reason (or so the story asserts), is simply another manifestation of the sickness that's afflicted this otherwise no-nonsense city. He even invokes fellow PhillieGulleteer Holly Moore -- not identified as such in the story -- in support of his thesis. Granted, he and Vadouvan in some sense post past each other, but I've never seen any sign that one considers the other somehow illegitimate for his food passions and preferences.

Maybe it's Steve Volk who's making a bit too much of this fracas?

[mrbigjas]

2) As was noted in subsequent posts, that photo is actually altered -- it's an illustration-cum-caricature.

not on page 2

[Rich Pawlak]

Again, there's some debate among the various involved parties, but Rich, let's say he did what you suggest:

1) Take better notes: He contends the waiter told him the steak on the plate was a strip steak. He surreptitiously notes this immediately so as to not be confused later. Result - complaint about crappy strip steak.

2) Double-check his notes: yep, strip steak. Result - complaint about crappy strip steak.

3) Have the professionalism to issue a retraction/apology/correction: retract/apologize-for/correct WHAT?

If Laban doesnt know what a strip steak looks like without a waiter having to tell him, whta the HELL is he doing reviewing restaurants???

[MarketStEl]

2) As was noted in subsequent posts, that photo is actually altered -- it's an illustration-cum-caricature.

not on page 2

←

I was referring only to the steak "photo" on the first page of the Web version.

[dagordon]

2) As was noted in subsequent posts, that photo is actually altered -- it's an illustration-cum-caricature.

not on page 2

←

I was referring only to the steak "photo" on the first page of the Web version.

←

Yeah, I think we know that those photos are altered... my point was that the underlying steak doesn't look great

[philadining]

If Laban doesnt know what a strip steak looks like without a waiter having to tell him, whta the HELL is he doing reviewing restaurants???

←

I don't think there's been any evidence that LaBan doesn't know what a strip steak is. It seems that the problem has arisen because he does know what a strip steak is, and reported on it.

None of the reporting I've seen has clearly established the chronology of the uttering of the words "strip steak" by a waiter, but I don't think we have any reason to believe that LaBan stared, dumbfounded, at his plate and called the waiter over to identify his food. It seems much more likely that at the time of ordering his steak frites, he asked what cut of beef it was. Or, after eating what he thought was a strip steak, with journalistic diligence, he asked the waiter to confirm.

The restaurant has already admitted that they sometimes serve a strip steak as their steak frites. As for what was on THAT plate, whose accounts do we have?

The owner, who was not even involved in the incident at the time it occurred, and who has already made, and retracted, an incorrect claim about what was ordered, and who certainly would have a self-serving interest in contending that it was not his prized strip steak on that plate.

The waiters, who according to the Philly Mag account, seemed rather confused about what meat was used in that dish, telling the magazine's reporters different things.

The chef, or more likely in the case of a lunch, line cooks, none of whom we have heard-from, would have no reason to remember this particular steak frites from any number of others. Given that the restaurant itself says that strip steaks are sometimes used for this dish, the only damning evidence I could imagine would be if the kitchen swore that they never, ever, under any circumstances, put out a strip steak on a steak frites order. We haven't heard that. And unless they literally never had that cut in the house, it would be hard to believe that it was impossible that some line cook in the lunch rush didn't grab some piece of meat he wasn't supposed to.

I've been served a parsley mojito. Shit happens.

And then we have the experienced food critic, who has certainly eaten a few steaks, and is paid to pay attention to details about what he's eating.

So, Rich, why are you so sure that LaBan's the one who got it wrong?

I know that you've said that you thought Chops was a good restaurant, and it may be, but is it really out of the realm of possibility that they, at least once, put out a bad steak on a lunch plate? Is it really impossible that it was a piece of strip steak?

[dagordon]

It's also worth mentioning depending on how the meat is trimmed and portioned you can get a rib steak to look identical to a NY strip steak, particularly when cooked.

If the bone and fat cap are removed from a rib steak, you're left with the same eye muscle that becomes the NY strip farther down the cow.

[kretch]

I've been served a parsley mojito. Shit happens.

Three years posting here and I've finally found my signature line. Thank you.

[Rich Pawlak]

If Laban doesnt know what a strip steak looks like without a waiter having to tell him, whta the HELL is he doing reviewing restaurants???

←

I don't think there's been any evidence that LaBan doesn't know what a strip steak is. It seems that the problem has arisen because he does know what a strip steak is, and reported on it.

None of the reporting I've seen has clearly established the chronology of the uttering of the words "strip steak" by a waiter, but I don't think we have any reason to believe that LaBan stared, dumbfounded, at his plate and called the waiter over to identify his food. It seems much more likely that at the time of ordering his steak frites, he asked what cut of beef it was. Or, after eating what he thought was a strip steak, with journalistic diligence, he asked the waiter to confirm.

The restaurant has already admitted that they sometimes serve a strip steak as their steak frites. As for what was on THAT plate, whose accounts do we have?

The owner, who was not even involved in the incident at the time it occurred, and who has already made, and retracted, an incorrect claim about what was ordered, and who certainly would have a self-serving interest in contending that it was not his prized strip steak on that plate.

The waiters, who according to the Philly Mag account, seemed rather confused about what meat was used in that dish, telling the magazine's reporters different things.

The chef, or more likely in the case of a lunch, line cooks, none of whom we have heard-from, would have no reason to remember this particular steak frites from any number of others. Given that the restaurant itself says that strip steaks are sometimes used for this dish, the only damning evidence I could imagine would be if the kitchen swore that they never, ever, under any circumstances, put out a strip steak on a steak frites order. We haven't heard that. And unless they literally never had that cut in the house, it would be hard to believe that it was impossible that some line cook in the lunch rush didn't grab some piece of meat he wasn't supposed to.

I've been served a parsley mojito. Shit happens.

And then we have the experienced food critic, who has certainly eaten a few steaks, and is paid to pay attention to details about what he's eating.

So, Rich, why are you so sure that LaBan's the one who got it wrong?

I know that you've said that you thought Chops was a good restaurant, and it may be, but is it really out of the realm of possibility that they, at least once, put out a bad steak on a lunch plate? Is it really impossible that it was a piece of strip steak?

←

Knowing Plotkin as well as I do, and knowing how fanatical he can be about his steaks and his wines, I have my doubts that the fault lies with Chops. And also knowing well the process for reviewing a restaurant, I find it hard to beleive that Laban can be so damn sure about every item he eats. . He MIMSELF admitted to Plotkin that he had made a mistake, but then refused to print a correction. Where does he get off doing that?

[dagordon]

Knowing Plotkin as well as I do, and knowing how fanatical he can be about his steaks and his wines, I have my doubts that the fault lies with Chops.

But Plotkin was already mistaken about what Laban ordered (he thought he'd ordered a steak sandwich without the bread).

He MIMSELF admitted to Plotkin that he had made a mistake, but then refused to print a correction. Where does he get off doing that?

←

According to whom exactly did Laban offer this admission, and what was the nature of the admission? I can see Laban apologizing for having made a mistake in not mentioning in his blurb that he'd had the lunch steak. But this is not an admission that anything in the blurb was factually incorrect.

[philadining]

I've been served a parsley mojito. Shit happens.

Three years posting here and I've finally found my signature line. Thank you.

←

I'm honored. And wish I'd thought of it!

[Rich Pawlak]

Knowing Plotkin as well as I do, and knowing how fanatical he can be about his steaks and his wines, I have my doubts that the fault lies with Chops.

But Plotkin was already mistaken about what Laban ordered (he thought he'd ordered a steak sandwich without the bread).

He MIMSELF admitted to Plotkin that he had made a mistake, but then refused to print a correction. Where does he get off doing that?

←

According to whom exactly did Laban offer this admission, and what was the nature of the admission? I can see Laban apologizing for having made a mistake in not mentioning in his blurb that he'd had the lunch steak. But this is not an admission that anything in the blurb was factually incorrect.

←

We only have Plotkin's account to go on, as Laban has refused to make any comment publicly. Plotkin aserts that Laban admitted his error and apologized.

[Vadouvan]

[Rich Pawlak]

I have no bias against Laban, but admit to knowing Plotkin well.

But the debate is not about where Plotkin buys his meat, but how well he knows his actual product and how he serves it, and a mistake made by a food critic.

[MarketStEl]

Even though it's clear LaBan goofed on identifying the cut -- and, it appears, so did the waiter -- I still don't see how this is actionable in a court of law, especially if the dip in business was caused not by the misidentification of the steak but by the opinion he gave of it. That was why I wrote the "correction" above the way I did.

That said, it does seem ridiculous that this affair has come to this point when a simple clarification printed in the paper would have satisfied Plotkin, as Katie said.

Aside: I brought this up with an acquaintance who drew a connection to that hilarious review of the Misconduct Tavern's secret-code system for obtaining bargain-priced burgers and cocktails in PW.

[Vadouvan]

I have no bias against Laban, but admit to knowing Plotkin well.

But the debate is not about where Plotkin buys his meat, but how well he knows his actual product and how he serves it, and a mistake made by a food critic.

Though the debate isnt specifically about where he buys his meat, it goes to the heart of his (plotkin's) conversation when one of his supporting arguments is that he buys his fabulous meat from 2nd tier distributors. Any chef will tell you there are lots of places to buy meat but the two places he names are not on the top ten, you as a good food writer should know that, so maybe not a bias against laban but certainly one towards plotkin.

[Mano]

As someone who is sometimes hired as an expert witness, I'd like to offer a different perspective.

This is a civil case, not criminal. Accordingly, either a judge or jury will determine if Mr. LaBan acted with malice and if so, were there any damages. Not being an attorney, there may be other relevant issues at play, but whether LaBan was served a strip steak or a rib eye won't be an issue at all to a judge or jury. As far as I know, no one has disputed LaBan's assertion that, "A recent meal, ... was expensive and disappointing, from the soggy and sour chopped salad to a miserably tough and fatty ... steak.”

I believe in this matter the trier(s) of fact won't care about what type of steak was served or who the purveyor is. What they'll pay attention to is that LaBan paid a lot of money at a high-end steak house and was served a tough and fatty piece of meat. When the average non-foodie person begins to hear dissertations on what they perceive to be hair splitting issues such as the difference between rib eye and strip steaks, eyes will glaze over in boredom and they'll become frustrated that their time is being wasted. They'll put themselves in LaBan's shoes and the issue to them will be plain and simple: the piece of meat was miserably tough and fatty.

The fact that Chops is an expensive steak house and that Plotkin claims to be obsessive about quality only strengthens the case against him.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Mano (log)