Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

An interesting and contentitious thread appeared at eGullet about this just yesterday.

To answer your questions from my perspective, I'm fine with bloggers writing reviews and opinions about whatever they want. I can tell if a writer (online, in print, appointed and official or not) knows what they're talking about. If they're talking crap I move on, though I am more offended if the crap is dished up by someone who is recognized as an expert.

As a person who cares about good honest writing, I generally think the more a writer discloses about the circumstances of a review, the better the review will be-- but it depends on the nature of the piece. M.F.K. Fisher mentioned restaurants all the time in her writing, but she did not really write restaurant reviews. I recently wrote a long piece attempting to describe the elusive factors that conspire to make a perfect meal and named a number of restaurants that have and have not provided the experience. Does that count as a review? I don't think so.

A big following means lots of exposure, so a wise writer is rigorous about disclosure and obsessed with fairness. Those that are not so careful may not lose their jobs but discerning readers know them for what they are.

Last but not least, it is not understood (by me) that a "professional" reviewer has any more authority than a really good blogger or forum participant. As I said further up, I can tell if a writer/reviewer has the goods.

I think bloggers' reviews of restaurants have to be taken with a grain of salt. If it appears as though a review is so obviously slanted as to imply that the restaurant owner is the ex-husband of someone's sister who got jilted, I'd disregard it altogether. ("The pasta fagiole was just short of vomitous.") Stuff like that is usually obvious but it's those subtle "digs" at a business that in no way relate to its actual service that can do harm.

OTOH, if a review is glowing, a restaurant may experience increased traffic - then it's up to the diner to decide whether to make subsequent visits. Even if a restaurant is awful, it will enjoy at least one visit by a diner who read a positive review (which might have been posted to do a restauranteur friend a favor). If a restaurant is excellent, a positive review will direct customers to it and that restaurant may wind up on someone's regular rotation of "dining out" destinations.

It's the unscrupulous use of blogs to libelously slam good businesses that make them less than credible sources of information.

Bloggers don't have the ethical obligations of real journalists by design. Hence, as rockykay mentioned earlier (albeit in Latin), "let the reader beware."

To me, reading a blog that reviews restaurants is like getting a recommendation from your friends -- some people rave about everything they eat, some despise every restaurant, and others give an opinion you value. You just have to know the source.

Frankly, I employ the same caution with professional journalists - both food and non-food alike. Even they can have agendas (Fox News, anyone?). You still have to know whose opinion you trust. Just because theirs is an educated opinion still doesn't make it fact.

Dominic
the zen kitchen

As a blogger, I don't think there are "blogging ethics" per se. A blogger can write about whatever they want, it's up to you as the blog-reader as to whether you continue reading that blog. I have come across many blogs in the blogosphere that are personally offending to me. Does that mean they shouldn't write them? Hardly, it just means I don't go back to those blogs.

I do think that blogs of note, or blogs with very high traffic may find themselves in a position where they do need to tread carefully and be responsible to their readers with their content. But that depends on personal perception and where the blogger wishes to go with their blog down the road.

As to bloggers doing restaurant reviews, that really seems like an unfair question. Who are we to limit who reviews a restaurant? I agree that the last thing needed is more restaurant reviewers, but if I take my young family out for a dinner, why can't I post a review of the dinner we had and my thoughts about it? In my opinion it's no different than telling a group of my friends where we went to dinner and how it was. It's up to that group of friends to decide if we have similar tastes and if my opinion can be trusted.

To be honest, the argument of blog ethics is getting tiring.

Karen, maybe it's just semantics, but I disagree. A "fact," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "thing that is indisputably the case." For instance, "The chef put 2 TB salt in his court bouillon" can be a factual statement.

As far as matters of taste go, those are up for argument. "The chef put too little salt in his court bouillon" is a matter of taste. 99.99% of people may agree with you, but it's still an opinion -- you have attached a value (good/bad) to it.

When a journalist reports "facts" they do get checked. When an opinion columnist (that's what a restaurant reviewer is, no?) writes about "matters of taste," however, their opinion can't be checked against anything except their previous opinions.

Food bloggers and restaurant reviewers can both share opinions. Bloggers can make up facts, but so can journalists. Like my dad always said, "Don't believe everything you read." The Internet is a jungle of good and bad information. I really believe that the ability to sift through it all with a discriminating eye is a big key to getting the most out of it.

Dominic
the zen kitchen

More simply put my initial musings were about the levels of accountability and the severity of potential consequences for malfeasance.

I have to admit though, I have learned some neat things on Serious Eats -- as a forum for "serious eaters" (isn't that the nickname we approved of?) of varying backgrounds, it's neat to hear firsthand about successes/failures/new ventures in food and eating. This, of course, doesn't stop me from blogging -- but you'll never read a restaurant review from me -- I'm waaaaaay too harsh :-)
Dominic
the zen kitchen
dvchurch at 10:30PM on 11/01/07

I've learned lots of neat things on Serious Eats, too, Dominic. I once asked someone what SE would be defined as and the answer was "a blog aggregator". I'm not sure if it is just, or only, that. Again, the boundaries are being stretched in terms of what people do and create in terms of on-line uses of blogging.

Personally, I had a blog for a little while which had essays and stories with food as part of the stories or used in a linked metaphorical sense within the stories for things that were going on in the character's minds (which the people who like this sort of thing were enjoying very much from their comments) but quit after having the experience of one guy who kept commenting that I should be putting pictures of food and recipes on my site or otherwise who did I think I was, that this was not a foodblog, and so on and so forth ad infinitum - all in a less-than-polite manner.

That's the flip side of ethics with blogging - those who lurk and comment with intent to harrass. And with the anonymity of the internet, people who are like this can do it so very much more easily and persistently than they could in other arenas.

There is a really interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about this. It's called "Will blog for food" and discusses a bunch of Yelp reviewers getting free meals from notable restaurants. The exchange of a free meal for a good review is looked down upon but happens everyday.

I think that the best way to go is to accept free meals but offer no promise of a "good" and biased review. There's no harm in bloggers reviewing restaurants as long as they keep to the original purpose of offering a down-to-Earth and real perspective.

Hillary
Chew on That

(Follow-up note)
I'm not asking just to be a b*tch, for those of you who may have that thought running through your mind.

The question to my mind is valid because until the time that information gathered from the internet is considered to be as credible or as valid a source of information as is gathered from other sources (newspapers, journals, books, etc.) for purposes of academic research, there will remain a difference in terms of how blogs are considered as opposed to other sources of information in terms of the levels of ethical conduct generally assured.

Taking themes from James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds and Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, I think that the opinion of the collective can be considered at least as reliable as that of an expert (or at least a very good start). Good luck convincing a professor of that, though!

Dominic
the zen kitchen