The Well Recognized Critic
Word comes this morning in NY that a well-recognized blogger, "Restaurant Girl", will now be the official food critic for the NY Daily News. RG, real name Danyelle Freeman, even has her photo on her website. Do you think that this will taint the objectivity of her reviews? Interested to hear chowhounders weigh in....
food10011
Aug 14, 2007 06:34AM
Yeah, I think you will need to take her reviews of the service specifically with a grain of salt since she will be known. Her review of the food though, may be inconsistent because some places will pay special attention while others won't. I wonder if she will tell us if she gets comped or get special treatment?
Permalink | Reply
You sure that's her real photo?
Permalink | Reply
It is -- she had a bit part on The Sopranos as one of Meadow's friends.
Permalink | Reply
Does anyone take the Daily News's restaurant reviews seriously?
Permalink | Reply
not really sure that's the point, though. regardless of whether the restaurant world lives and dies by the articles in the Daily News. I think the larger issue is whether or not a restaurant critic can deliver any sort of meaningful review if they are not 100% anonymous.
Permalink | Reply
i believe her take is that she will also offer some in-depth "insider" knowledge that she will probably get from being recognized. like, perhaps the chef will take time to explain to how the meal was made, where the meat is from, that sorta thing.
i never even knew daily news had restaurant reviews in the first place, but then again - the last time i read the daily news was in elementary school when we had to do newspaper clippings for our current events homework.
Permalink | Reply
They do have a Food/Dining section:
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/...
Permalink | Reply
Don't most restaurants figure out what a given restaurant critic looks like pretty soon anyway? It seems unavoidable unless you're going to wear elaborate disguises.
Permalink | Reply
Of course most restaurants in the city know what Frank Bruni and Adam Platt look like, but the facade of not knowing who they are remains. The truth is that the "everyday diner" will never have the same experience at a restaurant as a critic.
Permalink | Reply
Most restaurant critics are much lower-profile than Frank Bruni and successfully dine anonymously.
Even the most well-known critic will be anonymous when eating at many humbler establishments.
Permalink | Reply
Michael Bauer is far from low-profile, and his picture is purportedly in every restaurant kitchen in San Francisco. Although he may not be recognized in humbler establishments, since he doesn't review them, that wouldn't "count." I'm sure Bauer is recognized in every restaurant he's likely to review.
His attitude is somewhat laissez faire -- on his blog he acknowledges that he's sometimes recognized, but he doesn't seem to take any but the most cursory steps to avoid being recognized (he uses his friends' names to make reservations, but those names are also well-known in local restaurant circles).
Because it can't be said too often, here's a link to the award-winning "Eating in Michael Bauer's Town": http://web.archive.org/web/2003061805...
Permalink | Reply
Bauer's clearly not *always* recognized, since sometimes he reports on things that wouldn't have happened if he had been.
If he weren't his own editor he might be feeling some pressure to take a different gig due to his lack of anonymity.
Permalink | Reply
i read her blog a few times and just couldn't stand it. i hope her editor has a very sharp pencil.
Permalink | Reply
I don't think this will make too much of a difference. I think most restaurant critics are known if they have a powerful/local sway - though she might have enjoyed far more anonymity than this, since i don't think she'll be making seismic waves of change. That said, i'll take her with a grain of salt based on her "resume"
Permalink | Reply
I wonder how much it matters. I read Tom Sietsema's chats for the Washington Post, and while he says he does take measures to ensure that his identity isn't discovered, there's really only so much a restaurant can do once they realize they have a VIP. Your menu is your menu. The ingredients have been ordered, and your staff is in place. They might be able to rush an order or something, but you are who you are. Maybe the restaurant will be better able to make the best of what they have, but they can't make gold out of lead.
Permalink | Reply
In former NYT critic Ruth Reichl's memoir "Garlic and Sapphires," she tells a story about how at one restaurant she was recognized during dessert and they whipped away her half-eaten raspberry tart and replaced it with a fresh slice from one with bigger, prettier berries.
Permalink | Reply
Robert, thanks for mentioning telling this little anecdote. It piqued my curiousity enough to cause me to buy the book. The personas got tiresome after the first two or three (I didn't find the back stories of the fake people that interesting), but it was a great read overall, both entertaining and enlightening.
I wasn't surprised to read about a critic who went to a lot of effort not to be recognized, but I was very surprised by the occasions she wanted to make sure she was recognized (basically, to test to see if she had, in fact, been recognized on her previous visits to the restaurants.) I'm curious--what did you think of this strategy?
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
New Yorkers commonly believe that many restaurants have two tiers of quality and service, so it's interesting for a critic to test that.
Permalink | Reply
Very few, if any, famous food critics in the UK are anonymous. They all seem to have their photo plastered all over the TV screen or in magazines. Whether or not that affects their ability to do the job is something I really can't judge. Can restaurants whip out better meals all of a sudden when they recognize a critic? Service may improve, but I'm not sure about food. I'm an American and do remember many critics there living in secrecy. Interesting how things can vary.
Permalink | Reply
food critics are a lot like chefs when they show up. they are very nice to staff (generally). they have a whole plan of attack on the menu, they don't just peruse it. then they order EVERYTHING. they order more food than you think they'd be able to eat in their party; and they order the off-the-wall, interesting stuff, hardly ever the most-popular dishes. they order food combos that are unusual (meat apps and veg entree etc) if your establishment/menu is small it's not unusual for them to order "one of everything on the menu." duh, probably a food critic or a chef (the chefs won't order salad though). you can get a good clue by the bar tab; chefs will generally have a hefty one, critics will just have 1 glass of wine or 1 beer, & lots of water. some are more stealthy, of course, and come back multiple times, ordering carefully and working through the whole menu w multiple visits. an astute server can pick a critic even if they don't recognize them. if the server misses it the chef can often figure it out by the ticket-- "who is at table 19 with this kind of order?" and yes, if the staff picks up on it, the presentation improves, best cut of meat is selected etc. at a place where everything is basically the same (like a burger place) it's just the normal food being judged, though.
Permalink | Reply
I went on a couple of expeditions with the local food critic. He had a totally separate persona and was surrepititiously taking notes in a notebook under the table. We didn't order anything out of the ordinary, we ordered a lot of food, mainly because I was hungry and I wanted him to try some of the special Chinese dishes. We also didn't have any alcohol. And we didn't go out by ourselves, his wife was along for the ride too.
Permalink | Reply
I don't think I do any of those things and neither do any of the other critics I've gone on review dinners with. My bar tab's not slim, either.
Permalink | Reply
i think it's a good bet we're talking different types-- or maybe leagues-- of critics here, Robert. i've busted critics both as their server , and from boh, by scanning the ticket and thinking it's strange.
Permalink | Reply
I think it's regional. Here in foodie paradise, lots of people eat like critics.
Permalink | Reply
could be!
Permalink | Reply
why wouldn't a chef order a salad?
"food critics are a lot like chefs when they show up. they are very nice to staff (generally). they have a whole plan of attack on the menu, they don't just peruse it. then they order EVERYTHING. they order more food than you think they'd be able to eat in their party; and they order the off-the-wall, interesting stuff, hardly ever the most-popular dishes. they order food combos that are unusual (meat apps and veg entree etc) if your establishment/menu is small it's not unusual for them to order "one of everything on the menu."
Gee: sounds like the group of friends I went to dinner with Monday night. No chefs or critics though, just chowhounds!
Permalink | Reply
can make it better at work yourself w a walk-in full of vegetables, specialty cheeses, some rice noodles you just cooked, some beets left over from last night's prix fixe, some of the owner's special evoo-- restaurants don't sell salads like that, they are made and eaten back of the house.
Permalink | Reply
English journalism in general allows for more expression of personal opinions, so I think the standards for "objectivity" are different for both the journalist and the audience.
But if you want to know how a restaurant can improve its food for a VIP, you really should read "Garlic and Sapphires" (mentioned above) -- it's an entertaining read, regardless of why you pick it up.
I've also read that when the restaurant recognizes the name on the reservation, it's not unheard of for them to pack the house with friends and supporters to create a positive atmosphere. I suppose you could even do that if you recognize the critic when he walks in: call some friends and make sure the restaurant is busy and happy, and that when the nearby tables turn, there are people seated at them who will talk up how great they think the restaurant is.
Permalink | Reply
Many hounds have mentioned on these boards in the past that critics are not the solution to figuring out where to eat. Hounds don't want to be told where to eat, they much prefer to garner as many chowtips as possible, and then go try them out themselves and decide what they like. It's not even a matter of the critic's objectivity, rigour or knowledge (which like everyone's, will be imperfect, especially if they don't fact check very carefully), but simply that tastes and preferences will vary enough that we all have to responsible for finding our own deliciousness.
Permalink | Reply
True, but chowhound also vigorously polices shills on these boards, and a reviewer who gets special treatment because s/he's recognized is no better for the purposes of evaluating their opinions than someone who gets special treatment because they're a friend of the owner or who trades good treatment for positive plugs on the web.
Permalink | Reply
If I'm familiar with a someone's taste and reliability, their report on a place is a useful data point. Doesn't matter whether they're professionals writing for a newspaper, Web site, or guidebook, or amateurs writing for their own blogs, posting to sites like Chowhound, or commenting on review sites.
Permalink | Reply
Sure, if you that as a chowtip for something to try rather than a key to what is delicious or not.
Permalink | Reply
Sure, everyone has different taste. But if certain people tell me they like something, based on past experience I know almost for a fact that I'm going to like it too, so I'll make a point of going to anyplace they recommend ASAP.
Permalink | Reply
In general, I think reviews from a source like Chowhound are much more reliable than the "real critics" because they are going in as (supposedly) anonymous diners.
Permalink | Reply
But there are also many cases where these supposedly anonymous Chowhound diners are also regulars at a particular establishment, and so may get preferential treatment over other diners, no more different than a reviewer. Personally, as a reviewer I'd also look around at the dining room and look at the vibe. If it looks like I'm the only one in the dining room getting food and everyone else looks like they're starving to death, then that's going to look suspicious.
Permalink | Reply
That's true, though I try to mention if I'm a regular somewhere and if I think I've experienced special treatment. Also, there are one or two places I just don't post on anymore, even though I really like them, because I do get special treatment everytime I go there, and my experience seems to differ considerably enough from that of others posting on CH about the same place to make my experience perhaps of less use to others.
Permalink | Reply
I think if you asked any restauranteur, he or she would tell you, of course I know who my regulars are, and of course I am going to give them preferential treatment when I can. (Whether that means being seated without a reservation on a busy night, or maybe just a little extra attention to details) It has nothing to do with being any kind of insider, and everything to do with the business cultivating repeat business.
I also think that if Frank Bruni, or any other well known restaurant critic walked in to any serious restaurant "incognito", they would be recognized immediately, or if not, get up on the radar pretty quick, as soon as they started ordering a smorgasbord of food and started passing it around the table. Something else to remember, a good food critic is not going to walk in to a place once and then write his review. He is going to pay the restaurant repeat visits, and over time, just that fact will make him "recognizable" to management as someone they have served before, and thus someone worth cultivating further.
Permalink | Reply
The critics I know don't order any differently than any other foodie types. At least in the SF area, it's very common for a party of four to order four or more different appetizers and four different entrees and pass them around so everybody can taste everything. Not to mention all the small-plates places where everybody's doing that.
Permalink | Reply
"Something else to remember, a good food critic is not going to walk in to a place once and then write his review. He is going to pay the restaurant repeat visits, and over time, just that fact will make him "recognizable" to management as someone they have served before, and thus someone worth cultivating further.
Actually, most just go twice before writing a review. And some (esp in NY) review when the restaurant has only been open a mere 2-3 months.
Permalink | Reply
I think most critics figure after two months it's fair game.
I'd never review a place without going at least twice. If I go too early and they don't have it together, that doesn't count. Often I go three or four times so as to try more of the menu.
Permalink | Reply
What food critics do (no. of visits, how long a restaurant is open etc...) can vary tremendously from publication to publication and from critic to critic.
Permalink | Reply
How true. If you can catch a rerun of the first episode of the new Bravo "reality" series "The Parker", you will see some supposed critic arrive at the hotel under her own name, get the big welcome treatment from management. Then with her apparent BFF in tow in some sort of girls' weekend getaway, spend two days and an evening ordering virtually everything off the menu. Racking up very large tabs, and you got the impression that it was all probably comped by the hotel. (This was a return visit, as she did not say anything very nice about them the first visit. Hmmmmm, could this be a ploy of some unscrupulous "critics" to mooch...) She really did come off as a ditz with a plunging neckline.
And if she knew she was being filmed for a TV show, I guess anonymity didn't mean anything to her.
Permalink | Reply
Leslie McElroy is not a critic. I guess you could call her an Orange County cooking teacher and podcast culinary-travel-show host.
http://www.girlabouttownshow.com
Permalink | Reply
What ever, she was billed as a big time food writer by Bravo, and they played this like it was a real big deal to this hotel to get a "good review" out of her. It does highlight the fact that anyone with bus fare, an appetite and internet access can call themselves a food critic, food writer, travel show host, gourmand, culinary expert, etc.; publish something, and there will always be gullible people who will buy it as "authoritative". And that likely works to bury, or diminish from from view, real, professional, critical writing.
Permalink | Reply
All that highlights is that "reality" TV doesn't have much to do with reality, which is no secret to many fans, who appreciate that it's trashy entertainment, not educational documentary.
Permalink | Reply
I am not going to argue the value of "reality" television, its just lowest common denominator entertainment.
My point is about the fact that any person with access to the internet has a platform to be "published", without benefit of any editorial standards, which means that consumers of the material published need to be a little bit more skeptical and selective of what they take away.
Permalink | Reply
There were unscrupulous critics writing for print publications with low or no editorial standards long before the Internet.
Permalink | Reply
I thought she was a high-end travel agent who was "reviewing" the place for future client referrals. Or am I thinking of someone else?
Permalink | Reply
Some critics may just go twice, but critics that you really care about tend to go five or six times if there is anything noteworthy about the food. And there may be something to the way that critics order - I have seen a California critic, completely unknown outside his city, be made as a critic at a casual meal in Richmond, Virginia. It was kind of weird. Chefs do tend to order differently too, but can usually be spotted by the sheet pan burns on their arms and their love of big meat.
Permalink | Reply
What critic eats at places that often? I've never spoken with or read an interview with anyone who did.
Permalink | Reply
I just thought this was interesting, but Dara Moskowitz of City Pages in Minneapolis says she visits the restaurants she reviews at least 3 times for a good review and up to five times for a negative review. http://citypages.com/databank/28/1395... She says she'll "pull the plug on a potential review of an obscure restaurant after one visit if [she] think[s] the place is too awful, too ho-hum, or simply stands a good chance of improving if left alone."
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
Another way to spot a critic--he might be the guy waving a decibel meter around:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/s...
Permalink |