LA Times on Food Reviewer Trust and Anonymity
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 19:52So the LA Times might not know how to hook up with the local food blogging community but they sure know how to throw out some blog-bait with today’s article Restaurant critics are blowing their own covers.
Where to start? First, I answered one of my questions from the last post. I had asked why Gastropoda was on the LA Times Daily Dish blogroll. Turns out that this LA Times article and Gastropoda are written by the same person. In New York. I’m not so naive to think that all articles in the LA Times have to be penned locally, but this is clearly a New York piece with a few Los Angeles tidbits jammed in.
Case in point, our own brief mention in the article. After a quick notice of The Delicious Life and Eating LA, this is clumsily tossed on the end of the paragraph:
(la.foodblogging.com has a good blog roll of other local voices.)
Yes, parentheses and all. A result of my tirade on Monday? A last minute edit? Who knows. Why not just add some more local blogs to the mix, or list them at the end?
On to the content of the article. The gist is that times are changing, everyone can be a critic, the rules are different, who can you trust?
When newspapers had a monopoly, the rules were clear, as they still are at many of the major dailies. The Los Angeles Times requires the restaurant critic to work anonymously, arrive unannounced, make at least three visits and of course always pay for meals.
I think that the policy described demonstrates how utterly counterfeit a newspaper critic’s dining experience is. Start with anonymity. Odds are, as stated in the article, major restaurants do know who the reviewers are and the cat and mouse charade seems to just be for sport. Even the thought of sneaking in and out of a restaurant taints the dining experience. How can you ever be truly sure that you haven’t been “made”. And if it doesn’t matter, then why bother being anonymous?
I never announce myself as being from la.foodblogging, and yes, it is a bit egotistical to assume anyone would care. The places I write about, I go into assuming that they don’t know I am going to review the place. When I do take pictures, it is usually after the food has arrived, too late to make changes by then.
The policy also says that a reviewer must visit at least three times. Again, completely artificial compared with a “real” person’s dining habits. Plenty of newly opened restaurants show up in the food section of the times. That means three visits in a short amount of time. To me, that may make the good stuff look better and the bad stuff look worse, or vice versa. Ca’ Brea reopens late July, reviewed in September. With editing and deadlines, how much time does that give to cram in three visits (to a newly redone kitchen)?
I think there is value in multiple visits, but it’s not necessarily any more authentic than a single visit. Personally, I don’t trash a place based on one visit. I would, however, point out the positives based on one visit.
Finally, and my biggest peeve about “professional” critics vs. the bloggers, “of course always pay for meals”. Who pays? Pay for meals? Not the reviewer. The reviewer has an expense report. Price doesn’t have to come into their decisions of what to order. Someone else is paying. A “real” dining experience means that you consider what is coming out of your own pocket (and bank account) when selecting a menu item. Don’t believe me that reviewers don’t care about cost? Try this one from S. Irene Virbila about Bridge:
A word of caution: When a special is proposed, you’d better ask the price before committing to it. One night our otherwise wonderful waiter neglects to mention that the special tagliatelle with summer truffles that night costs $58, until one of us asks. He seems so embarrassed that I have to think it’s the policy not to volunteer the price.
I order it anyway because the cost seems so preposterous for summer truffles.
Really? Really? Does anyone think it is authentic to find out that a dish is insanely overpriced and then order it because the “cost seems so preposterous”? For the record, I do not. I don’t think there is any credibility built with the readers when you step outside what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. Perhaps that’s not what the idea of LA Times’ reviews are. Maybe it is a glimpse into a world where none of us live.
That’s where blogs shine. The majority of us pay for our own meals (it’s policy here at lafb). By “pay for our own meals” means that when we go out to eat, the money physically comes from our own bank account, and it’s not repaid.
As far as I am concerned, the debate is over on which is more authentic. Professional critics describe a place where no one lives, bloggers provide an authentic voice, good/bad/typos and all.
My focus in creating this website, and what I look for in reading other food blogs, is an honest dialog about great places to eat in and around Los Angeles. I look at these posts in the same way I look at my conversations with friends. We share things we like. We tell each other about new restaurants we stumbled into and what we ordered. We take these recommendations and try them out for ourselves. I don’t tell my friends that they should eat somewhere because I got a free meal (I don’t write reviews in exchange for meals) or that I ordered a dish becuase it was preposterously over priced. Furthermore, when you read a review here, you hear the author’s voice. We don’t edit or influence what is written about. We don’t require a minimum or maximum word count. It’s a real message about real meals eaten and real experiences shared.
Another article from the LA Times which glosses over local content while concentrating heavily on the East Coast. I don’t get it. This wasn’t an AP article was it? It was written expressly for the LA Times, right?
Your thoughts?
[update] Eater LA has this perfect observation:
It’s admirable for food critics like Michael Bauer and S. Irene Virbila to say they’re anonymous (and somehow keep their photos off of Google), but it would be much more admirable to admit that they aren’t anonymous at all. Whether they like it or not, both are made at the majority of restaurants they walk into. Does it sway their criticism? Obviously not; both still take a restaurant to task for its foibles. But until wigs are donned, no one’s really anonymous anymore. And speaking of Miss Irene, why didn’t she weigh in at all on this topic? It’s her paper. Her home. Is she above the question?
If that doesn’t sum up the relevance of this article, and frankly, the LA Times editorial policy, I don’t know what does. There was a perfect opportunity to survey one of its own, and The Times dropped the ball.
By Jonah (see more of his posts). Jonah is the founder of la.foodblogging and also created Digesty, a food blog aggregator and Cheww.com, a spam free foodblog search engine.
EL CHAVO! says:
September 12th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Excellent post Jonah, I agree with your analysis. I like reading food blogs precisely for the individual take on a place, item, or cuisine. The professionals are forced to write and sometimes it reads as if they are just drudging along with the work requirements. When it comes to food, I know I trust some blogs more than I would the paper.
Pauline says:
September 12th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
I have only ever posted one extremely negative entry about a restaurant that thankfully no longer exists. I felt so miserable writing about the bad food and dining experience that I decided that day forward I would never post another entry on lafb about a restaurant where I have not even one positive thing to say about it. I don’t have fun writing/talking about bad food and restaurants, and I know my friends are way more interested in hearing about places I like and what they should try and avoid when they go. That’s how I write on lafb. I’ve received feedback from readers who have agreed and disagreed with me. It’s like a conversation among people who love food. When I read what some of the professionals write, I feel a little talked at instead of talked to. This is why I love to blog here and read what others write - both the contributors and the readers who leave comments.
Matt K. says:
September 12th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
great observation. I actually wrote a letter to the food section and got a response from one of the editors. Hopefully it’ll get printed so i’ll let you know if it does. Oh, btw, I’m listening to a public radio broadcast with Ruth Reichl and the writer of Gastropoda. Here’s the URL:
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2006/01/10
good points though, overall.
Aubrey says:
September 13th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Jonah, you nailed it right on the head. I couldn’t agree more with everything you said.
And Pauline (great minds think alike), that’s what I’m talking about. Why waste time writing about places that suck? At least on our end we have no real compensation but to have people enjoy reading about places that are good. Yes, a warning to avoid some place has value but not as much as having someone you come to trust telling you about a place worth your money.
tokyoastrogirl says:
September 13th, 2007 at 10:47 am
You nailed it. I’ve always gotten the impression that the LA Times doesn’t care about nor have any interest in food bloggers from their own city. They also don’t “get it” in terms of how food bloggers (for the most part) are simply passing on valueable information to the consumer about a restaurant based on their own love of food and dining out. Who does it to be recognized? I don’t expect free meals out of blogging nor do I try and come off as some high-and-mighty authority figure on dining out. I do know that A) I live in Los Angeles and B) I love to eat in Los Angeles. I know that if I had the opportunity, I’d much rather read a review by a “regular” consumer and check out “real” photos before going to a restaurant, particularly if it’s for a special occassion or if the place is expensive. Isn’t that why most of us blog? To fill that need that obviously isn’t being filled by S Irene and other professionals?
Further proof that the LA Times doesn’t like LA Food Bloggers- their recent article on weird eats in and around LA doesn’t even mention our resident Deep End Dining’s Eddie Lin (who, incidentally, has repeatedly pitched the LA Times about similar stories and has been rejected or ignored by the paper. Can we say rip off?). Outrageous.
Wandering Chopsticks says:
September 13th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Since the LA Times was bought by the Tribune company, it stopped seeing itself and the news as local. It fancies itself as the West Coast version of the NY Times - as a big national paper that everyone wants to read. That’s why it barely covers the local news anymore. It thinks people only care about national or international events in general, or California in particular. Never mind getting down to the community level. Part of that means that for a story such as this, I bet you anything, the editors think people will just read for the general idea of the story, and not pay attention to the fact that it’s mainly based out East. Which is unfortunate, but hardly surprising. In the end, it further proves why LA has such a vibrant food blogging community. Obviously, our needs aren’t being met by what’s covered, or rather isn’t covered, in the LA Times.
Jonah says:
September 13th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I actually wrote a letter to the food section and got a response from one of the editors. Hopefully it’ll get printed so i’ll let you know if it does.
Another point for food blogs. In order to participate in the discussion with an LA Times review, you have to write a letter, hope it gets selected and then wait for it to be published on some obscure page, separate from the original content.
Here you can leave instant comments, unmoderated (except in extreme cases) and directly next to the relevant content. Even restaurant owners are free to join the discussion, how often does that happen in a major newspaper?
Thanks for the supportive comments, I think that it’s a topic worth highlighting.
Eddie says:
September 13th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Why doesn’t the LA Times just call themselves the New York Times? Oh yeah, because there already is one.
Excellent post, Jonah.
Thanks for the shout out, Tokyoastrogirl!
Atwater Village Newbie says:
September 13th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Matt K., I listened to that podcast with this LA Times writer, who also blogs at Gastropoda. Am I right she sounds like the type of New Yorker who barely deigns to consider the world beyond the Hudson? Snippy, intolerant east-coaster. You know, LA Times, Craigslist has an LA site now.
sam says:
September 14th, 2007 at 10:04 am
The LA Times is owend by the same people who own the New York Times….if you didn’t know that.
Jonah says:
September 14th, 2007 at 10:12 am
^ I don’t believe that is true. The LA Times is owned by the Tribune Company and the New York Times is owned by the New York Times Company:
http://www.tribune.com/
http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/additional_sites.html
KT says:
September 14th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
This whole thing kind of makes me sad. I don’t understand why bloggers and traditional journalists should be at odds, or why chefs and bloggers should be at odds. It’s all wildly different aspects of the same passion. Chefs love food and love to cook it. Writers love to write and love food so they write about food. Bloggers love food as well but for them the writing is a hobby as opposed to their full time job.
I don’t think that bloggers threaten the position of either professional chefs or professional journalism, yet so often the criticism of bloggers seems as to imply that that’s the case. And bloggers in turn respond defensively, as if what any particular person thinks of your blog matters, when the fact is that anyone can have a spot on the internet to say whatever they want, so no chef or newspaper’s complaints can make you lose your blogging privileges. Nor should you require validation by the traditional media to give your hobby value. Blogging has value because it provides the blogger with an outlet to express their passion about something, and it adds to the repository of free information available to people quickly and easily.
I think blogs are awesome because I can go to the internet now and look for information on any restaurant I want and find it, in order to help me decide where I want to lay out my cash. On the other hand, I also enjoy reading, for example, Russ Parson’s lovingly crafted stories on produce which are something I could not necessarily find on a blog, since he is getting paid to spend his entire day researching, interviewing and then writing on the topic and bloggers generally are working for free on their own time and may not have access to all the same sources as a pro journalist.
Both types of food writing are useful and have their place, and I think it’s sad when we’re reduced to arguing about who’s more legit when we should all be appreciating what all of us do.
Jonah says:
September 15th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Don’t be sad KT!
I agree 100% about your point on researched, crafted stories about a particular topic, such as produce or specialty foods. This LA Times article, however, deals specifically with restaurant reviews — which I believe are different.
To say which is better, blogger or professional critic, is clearly subjective. I’m not asserting that the blogger is always better. I am asserting that the blogger often relays a more authentic and relevant review of a restaurant.
To use a food metaphor: Taco Bell provides tacos to the masses, consistently and for a reasonable price, but are they necessarily an authentic provider of Mexican cuisine? A taco truck serves up authentic tacos and flavors true to the origin of the cook, but not everyone will seek them out or trust that they are getting a quality (or sanitary) meal.
Professional critics are useful like Taco Bell. They serve their purpose when you need them, but the machine behind food production is a mystery. Food bloggers can offer that taco truck experience, sometimes there are duds and sometimes there are gems, but you get to see who is cooking your food and can interact directly with them.
H.C. says:
September 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Very well done post, Jonah! Another peeve of mine when reading reviews from professional critics v. blogs is that sometimes I find the critics are spending too much words and space talking about not-as-relevant details. OK, it’s great backtracking through the executive chef’s résumé and that the dining room decor is inspired by influences of ______, but how’s the food? Blogs are often much more straightforward, first and foremost, about how the stuff tastes, how the experience went and whether it’s worth the price w/o burying it in too many details.
Jenny Yang says:
September 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
right on! food critics are rarely connect to real life grubbers. thanks for the mention in your blogroll by the way! (grubclub.blogspot.com)
i wonder…yelp.com has gotten really popular. have you checked it out? i post on there frequently and find it much easier and accessible to post than a blog….the interface is convenient. (http://ctowngal.yelp.com)
foodette says:
September 24th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Great post! I love how you point out that a review by a blogger is going to better reflect how the average consumer would feel. I think that paying for my own food definitely makes me a more critical judge. This is my money, and I am choosing to spend it at “your” establishment - I want to get what I pay for. Often, in this city, I don’t. But there are those great restaurants that do everything right, and never overcharge. I love writing about them, giving them free advertising, or however you see it. There is nothing better than relaying to the world (or at least, my small readership) a great experience at an amazing restaurant.