Reviewer Anonymity

Jim introduced the topic of reviewer anonymity--about
which he is quite passionate--over on the Manhattan
board (in the Il Buco thread). It came up regarding
David Rosengarten, who writes New York restaurant
reviews for Gourmet magazine and also hosts two shows
on the Food Network. I think Jim is of the opinion
(I'm sure he'll let us know if I'm putting words in
his mouth) that appearing on TV should be grounds for
automatic expulsion from the restaurant reviewing
community.

I think the more important thing is that a reviewer
not deceive the public. If the readers know that this
guy is on TV, they can read his reviews with that in
mind. Although some objectivity (especially regarding
service) can be lost when a reviewer is recognized, it
is also possible for a recognized journalist to gain
additional knowledge that may be of interest to the
readers. I think it comes down to your mission as a
reviewer. If consumer protection is your priority,
anonymity is critical. Otherwise, it may not be as
essential.

There's also the problem of inconsistent results due
to sometime-anonymity and incorrectly presumed
anonymity. I don't know if Jim has ever been
recognized in a restaurant. I know I have, even though
I try to follow the usual procedures of reserving
under a different name, etc. I also have to assume
that, in some cases, a restaurant has recognized me
but allowed me to think that I am still anonymous.

Well, anyway, does anybody have any thoughts on this?

Sounds to me like a bunch of egos! What makes any of
you think that many of us even care about your
opinions! Your reviews, at best, are interesting
reading. If I want to try a restaurant, I will do so
and review it myself! Same goes for movies! Please
don't be offended by my response...I do respect your
right to voice your opinions, just as I have voiced
mine! ps...Fran Schumer..formerly of the Times...calls
ahead and warns people...imagine that!

"Sounds to me like a bunch of egos! What makes any of you think that many of us even care about your opinions! Your reviews, at best, are interesting
reading. If I want to try a restaurant, I will do so and review it myself!"

Man, that's the smartest thing anyone's said yet! And it's the very essence of Chowhoundness: 'screw the pompous "experts" ("qualified" or not)...I'm out there eating!'

THANKS for posting!!!!

ciao

Where have you gone Lisa Antinore ? Joltin' Joe's in
bed and very sick - Hey Hey Hey , Hey Hey Hey.
Are we sort of pushing this site into areas that us
chowhounds fear not tread ?
Lets talk food !
Regards, JK

Why should anyone care about a reviewer's opinion?
Because most people don't have the time or money to try
every restaurant in the city, and so look for a
professional whose reviews are competant and reliable
to help them choose among the thousands of
possibilities.

Note that "competant" and "reliable" are two different
standards, both important. By "competant" I mean
truthful, complete, accurate, etc. By "reliable", I
mean "generally compatible with one's own tastes."
There are plenty of reliably incompetant reviewers,
unfortunately. And there are plenty of compentant
reviewers whose tastes do not reliably match mine, so I
don't pay attention to them.

If you want to do your own hunting, more power to you.
But it's silly to pretend that reviews have no purpose
or value.

I realize they have purpose...but, as I said, it is my
OPINION that MOST of them have little or no value. If
the next person finds them useful, then so be it!

You are welcome to hold the opinion that reviewers are
valueless _to_you_, but it is simply wrong to say flat
out that they have "little or no value" -- they have a
real value, as I explained.

Precisely, "they have a real value" to YOU. Not
to me and others.

Fascinating. When were elected to speak for "others"?

This is a dopey discussion. You asked why anyone would
value a reviewer's opinion. I answered. Do you not
understand the explanation, or are you simply arguing
for the sake of arguing?

I'm waiting for a discussion of how many restaurant
reviwers can dance on the head of a pin. pat

``One-hundred-forty-seven,'' said the
wise rebbe of Pinsk. ``But they all have
to be by Gael Greene.''

Now THIS is more like it!
Happiest of holidays to all of Chowdom. pat

Amen ! And...yay!

I'm waiting for a discussion of how many restaurant
reviwers can dance on the head of a pin."

Actually, I want to hear the one about how many
restaurant reviewers it takes to screw in a light bulb.
Anyone know that one?

> how many restaurant reviewers it takes to screw in a
> light bulb.

Only one, but you won't know who did it until next
week's edition.

note that it would have to be a very dim bulb.

If I may interject a helpful comment (while humbly requesting absence of flames from either side), Anon. originally said " it is my OPINION that MOST of them have little or no value." According to Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is crap"), this can be taken as true without impugning the value of any particular reviewer.

> Anon. originally said " it is my OPINION that MOST
> of them have little or no value."

No, he didn't. He originally
(http://www.chowhound.com/boards/gener...
)said

Sounds to me like a bunch of egos! What makes any of
you think that many of us even care about your
opinions! Your reviews, at best, are interesting
reading.

I then explained why someone would care about a
reviewer's opinion, and Anon. replied with the line you
quoted. I then pointed out that that statement is also
incorrect: Reviews have value because some people value
them. They may have no value to Anon., but that's not
what he said. What he said is simply incorrect.

Let me clarify. I agree that Anon's original posting wasn't particularly polite, but it didn't strike me as vicious either -- he/she did, after all, say that reviews could be interesting reading. I think the intent was more mischievous/populist than destructive. Since the followup did talk about "MOST" reviews, I was trying to say that we could accept the truth of that formulation without attacking all reviewers -- although Anon seems to be doing the latter as well. I agree, by the way, with your defense of the value of (good!) reviews. No offense to either you or Anon -- I appreciate both expertise and mischievous populism.

Shaw--nothing personal, but you are a hobbyist
with a web site, not a trained critic for a
legitimate media outlet. Anonymity as an issue
probably doesn't come up all that often for you
because nothing is on the line for the restaurant.
You are a good eater, and a big spender, and I'm
sure the Gramercy Tavern adores you as a customer,
but the Shaw Report ain't exactly the Times, if
you know what I mean.

As somebody who makes his living in this wretched
profession, I've got to tell you--anonymity is
a pain. I hate being stuck at a bad table and
watching the waiters fawn over other patrons;
I hate not being able to command a top performance
from a chef. I especially hate it when I have
to watch a restaurant staff fall all over
freeloading critics from competing publications,
while I--with literally 500 times the
readership--have to worry about tasting enough
dishes without pissing off the paper's accountants.
When I am recognized, and it happens, believe me,
I know.

This is why every legitimate publication separates
the function of restaurant critic and food writer--
or theater critic and arts reporter, for that matter.

I truly envy the diners who are able to form
a true and lasting bond with a restaurant, to
challenge the kitchen to please them, to be
offered a special wine that the restaurant
has just gotten on allocation, or a mallard
that a customer shot at his duck club last
weekend, or a special proscuitto the maitre
'd's mom has managed to smuggle out of Friuli.
It's truly perverse to play the anonymity
game if you absolutely don't have to.

But you know what? The reviews are better for it.
I never have to worry whether the chef has
rushed across town from his sister restaurant
because the sous chef isn't up to snuff this week;
whether I'm getting 3 times the usual allotment
of foie gras with my quail; or whether the owner,
knowing my great affection for winter savory,
has somehow managed to sneak some into the
oxtails.

Rosengarten, with his recognizability and
(possibly more important) his employer's
ability to make instant stars out of chefs,
is no more able to make an accurate assessment
of a restaurant, to experience a typical MEAL
in a restaurant, than Elizabeth Taylor ... or
Tim Zagat.

Al, I'm flattered that you're familiar with my Web
site. Nothing personal, but should I know who you are?

Based on what you wrote here (which is all I've ever
seen of your writing) I think your notions of "trained
critics" (what school offers this degree?) and
"legitimate media outlets" (is the Internet
"illegitimate"?) and such are a bit overblown, as is
your sense of self-pity. If you think the business is
wretched, and you feel that you're making a huge
sacrifice by dining the way you do, I suggest another
line of work. I write about restaurants because I like
to do it, not as an act of self-flagellation.

You think you always know when you've been recognized,
fine.

Basically, Mr. Shaw, you are in the position
of a man who has gone to a lot of Knicks games
and thinks that he is qualified to be Mike
Lupica--or Patrick Ewing.

Tom Sietsma, who runs the Sidewalk site
in D.C., is a legitimate critic who just happens
to be on the web; Jim, whose work is largely
online these days, is legitimate, a professional.
So is Amy, who posts here a lot.

You, on the other hand, are an attorney with
a fancy computer and a lot of time on your hands.

Your thoughts on restaurants mean exactly as much
as my thoughts on tort reform.

Your messages speak for themselves--fabulous
illustrations of all that's wrong with self-styled
"professional" restaurant critics. I certainly don't
have enough time on my hands to dignify your
groundless statements with further argument. When you
address the points I've already made, I may have more
to say. Since you've said nothing, I'm done. Nothing
personal, of course.

Wow, I thought your previous message got the point across very nicely; it's a pity you chose to go this extra angry/insulting mile.

I think it's cool that Steven's trying to establish a habit of anonymity. Who knows; he may one day get a real writing gig, and this way he'll be in a more comfortable position than, say, Ruth Reichl who has lots of friends in the restaurant biz from her pre-reviewing West Coast days.

And as to his qualifications, while I agree that he may show a bit of hubris, there are people in real reviewing gigs with lots of power and prestige who are less qualified than he (and who, for that matter, don't give a damn about ethics or anonymity). They deserve knocking down to size more than Steven.

Also, for the record, while "Al" is correct about my writing largely online these days (while I nurse my post-book burnout by laying low and playing tons of trombone gigs), I have long experience in print, having written for Newsday, NY Press, Brooklyn Bridge, Wine and Spirits, Time Out, and many others, plus two guidebooks.

Jim, thanks for those parts of your messages that
constitute a defense of me--I think. As for the
remaining points--the ones on which you and Al-the-
coward (come on, Al, show your face if you dare) seem
to agree--I'm not going to bore everybody by dragging
this thread out any longer. I've already made the
basic points, and what I really wanted to do was have
a serious discussion of anonymity. Thanks to all who
participated in it. I'll see you on another thread.

"thanks for those parts of your messages that
constitute a defense of me--I think"

Ouch...I thought it was a pretty good defense. I
CERTAINLY didn't mean to make you feel ganged-up on
(especially after than spiteful message from "Al"),
sorry!

Maybe you objected to my saying you had "hubris". Ok,
let me explain.

Say I was an amateur law buff. I read law books, take
adult ed classes on legal issues, hang around
courtrooms. I have a website where I opine on legal
issues, and some of those opinions are pretty good for
someone without the experience and breadth of knowledge
of a trained professional.

So far so good.

But then say I started talking about "my clients". How
would you feel?

Now, of course, food's a slightly different situation.
EVERYONE knows SOMETHING about food, and everyone's
justified in having an opinion when it comes to matters
of basic taste (that is, my saying a dish is delicious
doesn't make it dogma...my taste buds are real good but
not intrinsically "better" than any other careful,
experienced taster). So in one sense, a professional
food critic (I'm only talking about GOOD ones who've
worked hard to learn, not hacks who've backdoored into
the job) is on a level field with any other dedicated
chowhound. In fact, there are chowhounds on this site
whose food knowledge rivals my own.

But that doesn't make them "real" restaurant critics.
Plenty of them definitely could be, but there's a LOT
to learn first. Restaurant reviewing is exactly like
singing...anyone can do it to some extent, and there
are amateurs whose voice quality is as pleasing as some
pros. But that doesn't mean that anyone who sings in
the shower is a professional just because they declare
themselves to be. Or that an amateur with a nice voice
would know what to do if the scenery fell over or if
the orchestra skipped a beat, or if they'd be able to
sing five shows in two days with a bad cold, or just
simply know how to comport themselves on stage in
front of thousands of savvy, second-guessing spectators
night after night without screwing up too much. Or fail
to pick up the pseudonym when someone sends them a
nasty message signed "Bell Canto" because they haven't
done sufficient study of music to know styles
and terminology.

What I was trying to say to "Al" was that you shouldn't
be discouraged from starting off on the right foot re:
anonymity, on the chance that you may one day reach a
point where you're qualified to call yourself a
professional reviewer. "Al's" point, made elegantly in
his first message and very badly and nastily in his
second, was that there's learning to be done before you
put yourself in that rank (though, as I said to "Al",
there are plenty in that rank who haven't learned a
blessed thing...same as with singing)

Also, I agree that "Al" is being cowardly in using a
pseudonym (again, folks, let me know--via email if
you'd like--if you think personal attacks should be
deleted from the message boards. I hate to play censor,
but I also hate to have flaming stuff on the site).

I agree that we should move on...I very much regret
being forced into the difficult position of having to
spell this out to you in order to break up a fight (and
explain what you took as a half-hearted defense).
Please note, too, that this took me over half an hour
to write in my brand new apartment full of leftover
airborne cat dander and I'm wheezing and taking
Ventolin inhalor hits every few minutes...so you've got
to believe that I DO care about your feelings!! Ok, now
out for some fresh air...

Thanks, Jim. Although I respectfully disagree with
much of what you said, I appreciate your taking so
much time to craft such an elegant, diplomatic and
thoughtful response. My own position is that there is
only one way to judge a critic: By what he or she
writes. I have a lot of respect for you and I hope
that you will someday come to view me as a colleague.

"My own position is that there is only one way to judge a critic: By what he or she writes"

Yes, I agree.

Russell "Shit",

Aren't you the one who harassed the very same Lisa Antenone that Jim mentioned a few messages ago?

YOUR opinion is worth just what your last name suggests.

Crawl back under your rock and eat the fungi you deserve.

What I think big-dog's trying to tell you is that just because you can afford to
eat out in fancy places a lot and choose to vent your unsolicited smug
pontifications
on your embarrassing little vanity website, that doesn't mean you know anything
about food (much less have the right to call yourself a restaurant critic). Now, it doesn't necessarily mean you DON'T know anything
about food, either. But in your case it does.

But this is the Internet. Keep acting like an expert and eventually people will start
to believe it. Be careful, though, not to EVER let up with the relentless self promotion.

Amen "Al" (Steven--it's a pseudonym..."al pastor" is a Mexican gyro/shwarma). My book wouldn't have had to go thousands of dollars over budget (uncompensed, I might add...this book HAS to sell) and I wouldn't have had to have done so many many hundreds of checkup meals (with the constant headache of lining up eaters...sounds like a snap, but it's a nightmare) if I could've just told each chef "give me a sample taste of everything" and waltzed on to the next place.

Oh, and as for "Al" always knowing when he's been recognized...believe it. You can't miss it. It's an umistakable thing. Trust us both on this.

But I disagree with one thing "Al" said...about not being able to form lasting bonds and become a regular. It IS possible, but you've got to eat out an awful lot. I manage to scout lots of new places while remaining on semi-regular status at a number of places where I'm a "friend" of the restaurant...as a musician/chowhound, not as a food writer. They don't know my name or that I write (many have my reviews in their window yet have no clue).

And, Dave Feldman: while I know you think I'm extreme, you have to understand that there are two tacks to take in this biz: surgical clean or sleazy as all get-out. Anything in the middle is an 89 degree slippery slope (and DUMB...if you're gonna lose yer innocence, sell out BIG). I happen to have chosen the former, reasoning that the only thing I have to sell is my opinion, and that I've got to do everything I can to protect its worth.

So who is Al Pastor and why is he or she afraid to use
a real name when leveling unprovoked insults at me?

Not sure. Best to just ignore messages like that.

As webmaster here, I'm not really sure what to do about such
messages...Lisa Antinore received similarly insulting'
anonymous messages a few months ago. I don't feel that I should
delete them if they're non-commercial, non-violation of copyright,
non-libelous, etc, though I do hope for a more high-toned
discussion (feedback on this, anyone?)

As for his anonymity, there's no way to prevent that. Short of making this a registered, password-entered site, there's no way to verify identity...

woops, I ran out of space (I'm using lynx).

Anyway, while we all want to see lively, opinionated, passionate
conversation here, I do ask that people try to keep things
substantial and not personal.

The Management

I think this is a complicated subject. Relatively few
food writers make their living exclusively from
reviews. Most reviewers also write features and/or
news articles that sometimes involve
meeting/interviewing restaurateurs. I imagine it
would be difficult to learn more about the industry
without talking extensively, and sometimes informally
or off the record, with folks in the industry.

We had a similar discussion here vis a vis the Ed
Levine article by Ruth Reichl. I used to think that
Jim's position was extreme, but I respect it
immensely. I do think that upscale-restaurant
reviewers, in particular, tend to minimize the drastic
change in service that they receive because they are
recognized. Anyone who has ever been on the receiving
end of a Sirio Maccioni glare at Le Cirque would
understand.

"I do think that upscale-restaurant reviewers, in particular, tend to minimize the drastic change in service that they receive because they are recognized"

Rosengarten's Il Buco review is a stunning example. He blew it. He failed his readers. And that's just shameful (more tongue clucking in my message in the Il Buco thread, at http://www.chowhound.com/boards/manha...)

What you said makes sense to me; I'd just like to add
another example, that of Sylvia Carter. I think she is
a very fine reviewer, but I think she is also often
recognized. Last night I was standing outside the
Afghan Kebab House #4 in Jackson Heights, waiting for
my takeout dinner (I was walking my dog), and as I
waited I read Carter's review posted in the window. The
first sentence of the review says that the owner of AKH
had called her up, inviting her to review his new
location -- kind of an extreme example of the reviewer
being known to the restaurant. The fact that she made
that clear at the head of the review seems to me very
ethical; and I think she wrote an accurate review.

jeremy--anonymity is not compromised via a phone call.
And I promise you that Sylvia was careful to not tell
the owner when she was coming.
She's above reproach, ethically.

Jim,

Just for clarification. I assume that appearances on
television aren't, per se, the problem. Would there
be anything wrong with Ruth Reichl or Jim Leff
appearing on television, reviewing restaurants,
assuming the disguise was maintained (speaking of
which, what was your disguise at the Borders signing?).

Any problems with having a reporter doing video
reports about restaurants? Not full-fledged reviews,
but recommendations (e.g., "here's a great place for
ribs" with video accompaniment?).

I just think there can be different types of reviews
and you get different types of information from each.
A truly anonymous reviewer I assume will tell me how I
might be treated if I were to visit a restaurant
occasionally. A reviewer who is known and even fawned
over can let me know exactly what a restaurant is
capable of at what it conceives of as it's best. I
might also have an idea of how I might be treated if I
were to establish myself there as a regular. And
then, recognized or not, all the dishes are filtered
through the sensibilities of the particular reviewer -
that varies and gives me yet another level of
information. While true fawning (there are ruder
names for it) is pretty repugnant to me, I think all
types of reviews are valuable.

no, of course tv is not a problem per se...but television producers are unhappy with having on-air people heavily disguised. And going on without disguise is tantamount to wearing a "bribe me" button in restaurants.

"Any problems with having a reporter doing video reports about restaurants?"

again, in disguise no problem. The media isn't the problem, it's the loss of anonymity.

At the signing today I wore a panama hat with Groucho glasses/nose/moustache (thanks to Jonathan Gold for suggesting the latter somewhat classic touch). Introduced myself as "Captain Spaulding"

Many thanks to the many of you who came out, by the way; the Borders people were very pleased with the turnout and sales, so...again, thanks