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)

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.

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.

http://www.tribune.com/

http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/additional_sites.html

Excellent post, Jonah.

Thanks for the shout out, Tokyoastrogirl!

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.