569031 Sat Nov 01 22:12:47 -0700 2008 2 33 Food Media and News 0 4143606 I enjoyed the article about Jonathan Gold's food controversies with brother Mark in today's LA Times, but was rather shocked to see a large picture of the food critic's very distinctive mug on the front of the California section. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-golds1-2008nov01,0,6522458.story I know his picture was briefly up on the LA Weekly website after he won the Pulitzer, but has he given up all pretense of anonymity? Maybe he's just too easy to spot anyway, but still this seems to fly in the face of general food critic ethics. Thoughts? Sat Nov 01 22:12:47 -0700 2008 10132 sku 1 4143728 "He maintains the look of a shipwrecked baron"...that's pretty good. (He won a Pulitzer, he can handle it.) Sun Nov 02 00:32:34 -0700 2008 4143606 27275 ML8000 1 4144063 J. Gold's image has been elsewhere as well. My guess is that since his anonymity is history, he no longer is so concerned about his face being shown elsewhere now. I've heard that even before his Pulitzer prize Champagne toasting images were in the news, many mainstream restauranteurs already knew who he was and what he looked like. Images, descriptions, and general gossip going around the SoCal restaurant industry would be exchanged or even posted in the back portions of eateries. Moreover, many of the restaurants that he visits are so ethnically out of the English-language mainstream that, Pulitzer or no Pulitzer, I would surmise that Jonathan Gold to many places that he visits is just John Q. Public looking for a meal at the local Thai, Chinese, Mexican, Indian, Korean, or other fill-in-the-blank LA eatery... Sun Nov 02 07:48:31 -0800 2008 4143606 64003 bulavinaka