Food Critics and Anonymity: Does It Impact Reviews?
The San Francisco Chronicle's Michael Bauer wrote last week in his column on how having a blog gives him the ability to have an open dialogue with both diners and restaurateurs, and as a result, also helps him be more informed as a critic. Given such direct correspondence with the owners, wouldn't it impact his ability to give an objective review? He doesn't think so:
Call me dense, but I don't see how corresponding by e-mail with restaurateurs and chefs makes me any less anonymous. This type of interaction only helps to inform my coverage. It has no bearing on whether I'm recognized when I go to a restaurant.
Before the Internet, I often would call a chef after the visits were made and the review was mostly written to clarify a few points. I still call on occasion, but the Internet is much more anonymous because owners and chefs can't even connect a voice to the person.
The visibility of food critics does bring up an interesting point in terms of how it plays into not just the review of a restaurant, but the service the critic receives at a restaurant by being recognized—take the Daily News's Danyelle Freeman, also known as Restaurant Girl, who's no camera-shy Frank Bruni when she's flaunting a glamorous headshot. From complimentary dishes to even full-out comped meals, you have to wonder how much it tinges a review, because who isn't enamored when given free dishes?
On the other hand, there are reviewers who claim that in the end, it all just boils down to the food, regardless of whether or not they're pampered or not. As Craig LaBan, critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, told the LA Times last year: "Niceness you can fake. Attention you can fake. Skill you can't."
What's your view? Do you trust a critic who protects his anonymity more, or does it ultimately not make a considerable difference? And for bloggers who go and review restaurants, how obvious do you make it (i.e. you whip out a camera or take notes) that you're there to chow and critique?
Related
On Banning Photography from Restaurants
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
8 Comments:
The Phantom Gourmet is very popular in Boston and is my number 1 destination when I'm looking for an honest opinion on some local food. Plus their TV show on weekend mornings is always a good way to get my appetite going!
100% agree - I'd be too suspicious of a good review from a non-anonymous and well known reviewer.
cjingram at 2:47PM on 06/23/08
I think Bruni's Ago review is a recent example of not recognizing a food critic and in turn getting a more honest reflection of the restaurant. Had Ago recognized him, perhaps they would have been a bit more attentitive and paid attention to detail. The food most likely still would have been crap, but perhaps crap with more effort.
souldawg at 2:56PM on 06/23/08
Read Garlic and Sapphires: The Secret Life of a Critic in Disguise by Ruth Reichl. It is an easy read, humorous, and interesting. To the point of this forum topic, I recall a specific instance in the book in which the author's identity became known during the dessert course. The already delivered selection with scrawny raspberries and less than perfect presentation was wisked away and replaced with a perfect item sprinkled with huge ripe berries. No, the chef can't change his recipe when he knows who is dining, but he can save his best for the elite. (Whether 'elite' means critic, celebrity, powerful business person, or mobster) For the layman to trust a critique, it has to come from one who was served as a layman.
akbmeier at 3:23PM on 06/23/08
I really can't believe that someone who's known to be a critic won't be given special attention in a restaurant. They may be giving an honest review of what they get, but what they get isn't necessarily what everyone else gets, and when I read reviews, I want to know what to expect, not what to expect if I were a critic, too. I second akbmeier's suggested read. I was always a little surprised to read how poorly Reichl was treated when she went into a restaurant "undercover."
OneWallKitchen at 3:35PM on 06/23/08
Frank Bruni is recognized in restaurants. William Grimes was recognized (although he seemed to have a few anonymous months). Ruth Reichl was recognized, no matter how flashy her disguises. Bryan Miller might as well have had a neon sign flashing above his head. A critic who is not recognized at a major restaurant is a critic the house doesn't care about, and the sad thing is that there are maybe a dozen kitchens in the country skilled enough to change anything substantial about a meal, except for possibly portion size, when they do spot a critic. A kitchen can cook only as well as it is trained to cook, and the idea that there is some special meal it can pull out when a VIP walks in is a myth. Except of course at Daniel, which really does have a high gear.
condiment at 6:17PM on 06/23/08
I have reviewed restaurants for a magazine where prior arrangements have been made. I've tasted some good things and was treated well on these visits. One chef even invited me back into the kitchen to watch naan bread cook inside a tandoor oven! I would hope the staff treated me the same way they would any customer. This covers the entire experience, from service and atmosphere to quality and presentation of food. But there is the possibility they tried to ramp up the "pamper" factor in hopes of gaining a favorable review. I have also written about restaurant experiences on my blog. On these occasions, I didn't reveal (at least verbally) to the staff of my food writing intentions, though the camera and notepad did come out. Whether this affected service or quality of food, I don't know. Perhaps I should return to a place again, without arrangements, to compare and contrast experiences.
bster18 at 7:17PM on 06/23/08
A food reviewer (critic) should be anonymous and random. There should be no freebies, no pre-arranged meeting, and no chance of special treatment. He or She should get the same product and the same service as Joe Blow who just walked in from the street.
That's the way I see it. And I don't care if your reviewing McDonald's or Momofuku.
FastFoodCritic at 7:56PM on 06/23/08
For a year, I worked at a Nursing Home as an Activities Assistant. I was shocked and dismayed that they were informed well in advance of State Inspections. The flurry of activity and improvements was unbelievable. I guess if they had no advance notice, possibly they could have been shut down with nowhere for the residents to go? The standard of service should not have been different because they were going to be inspected and evaluated, but it most definitely was, in every department. I think the same happens in restaurants. No notice, anonymity and get paid by your employer, period.
PerkyMac at 10:29AM on 06/24/08