Weighing in

A headline on the front page of the SF Chronicle last weekend read:

Food bloggers dish up plates of spicy criticism:
Formerly formal discipline of reviewing becomes a free-for-all for online amateurs

It argued, essentially, that paid writers –aka real journalists- have editors and are therefore more ethical and objective than rampant barbaric bloggers with only fifteen bucks a months to Typepad for a soapbox on which to stand and shout into the void.

Wow. What a revelation! Can we possibly print a more tiresome argument than this? I read it and, frankly, couldn't even be arsed to respond. Then my friend Sam's post this morning got me going for a minute. She was threatening to quit food blogging altogether as a result of that silly article. Now, it took me a few minutes to realize that today is April Fool, and her post was but a smart April Fool's joke. The post made me go read all the bruhaha and snark that came from that article anyway. Besides that yawn-inducing argument, there were also snide comments –in Mr.Bauer's subsequent blog post and the comment section- about bloggers misusing their 'fame' and demanding better treatment and freebies from restaurants.

That argument is just so silly I can hardly muster up the energy to respond, yet I am but an idle blogger with no better things to do so I will anyway. First of all, not all journalists are created equal, and not all bloggers are cut from the same cloth. Speaking of them as though every journalist has the same respectable ethics and all bloggers behave with the same objectionable behaviors is just plain ignorant.

The article pointed out a frequent critique on the issue of bloggers vs. journalists -that bloggers are ill-qualified when compared to journalists in the field. I'm not sure if I buy this one. Is it always true? Frank Bruni got his lofty job with merely an ability to write engagingly while having no apparent qualification in the field of gastronomy. Notice I said 'apparent'? Having not made acquaintance of Mr.Bruni himself nor his qualifications, I am in fact ill-qualified to judge either of them. For all I know he is the best home cook in the world or has the superhuman taste memory of the Emperor of Wine Robert Parker –said about- himself. When Marlena Spieler wrote a piece on the restaurant L'Arpège for the Chronicle Food Section, the meal she reported was her very first wide-eye experience at the restaurant. I've been to L'Arpège more times than I care to remember in the last few years. Doesn't that make me essentially more qualified than Ms.Spieler to write about the restaurant, even if I had to pay for the meals myself and I had no editor to speak of but my Spell Checker?

Apology to both Mr.Bruni and Ms.Spieler, I didn't single them out to pick on them. I was merely illustrating the point that the question of qualification was perhaps harder to judge than one might think. Having gone to culinary school doesn't always make one a good cook or give one a better understanding of food than someone who hasn't done it. If it were so there would not be a bad restaurant. Plus, two of the best chefs in the world, Heston Blumenthal and Alain Passard, are autodidact. Having cooked in a restaurant or worked in one also doesn't automatically make one an authority on food. Nor is being paid to write or having an editor.

Another point of critique has to do with objectivity. Journalists like Mr.Bauer pride themselves in their ability to be objective. But objective? Seriously? Anyone who thinks s/he can write a truly objective review of a restaurant is misguided at best. There is no such thing as a purely objective review. A question of taste is almost inherently subjective. Certain flavors and combinations might appeal to you while not to others. I don't dispute that there are objective criteria one can use -this piece of fish is fresher than that one, for example. Or if we are speaking of a classic sauce, a critic can –more or less- objectively comment on whether it has been prepared correctly. But when it comes to judging the dish itself -how the piece of fish was paired with what sauce or accompaniment- one must venture into a subjective, that is to say taste-based, territory. A style of food, formality of service, and many other factors contributing to a good or great meal are often judged subjectively.

Am I arguing, then, that all restaurant reviews and reports are subjective and therefore useless? No I am not. To me, the value is not in objectivity. It is in consistency and transparency which form a context for any subjective restaurant review. And in this a blogger can be on par with any journalist. (Notice that I didn't say all bloggers here, right? Let me repeat again, not all bloggers are created equal, and -you know what?- neither are all journalists.)

It's not a question of how many three star restaurants I've eaten in or how many times I've flirted with death eating strange street food à la Tony Bourdain. I can go one counting the stars until I am blue in the face and all but a few of my readers will care. It's all about context. Anyone can read what I've said on the subject of cooking and eating right here chez moi and make up your own mind about my qualification. My bias, prejudice, and relationships are laid out for all to see. My archives are easily accessible, going way back to the old days my blog wasn't even about food. My blog is my context -that’s the nature of blogs. Read it and make up your own mind.

Building an effective context requires social investment on the part of the readers themselves, and some forms of media make the context more visible than others. A review written by a Joe Schmoe on Chowhound is worth less to me than one by, say, Melanie Wong, whom I know and whose taste I understand. Especially since the new Chowhound interface doesn't exactly make finding other reviews written by that Joe Schmoe easy, and things get even worse when a user is largely free to register with whatever name(s) s/he wants. Blogs, in this case, are better at context building because the blogger is almost always visible. The same goes with big time newspaper reviewers. Having followed Michael Bauer's reviews for years now, I've also developed a good context to judge whether I'd agree with his call on a restaurant.

Ultimately, it comes down to power in the hands of the people themselves. It's the readers who get to judge whose voice they will listen to or whose recommendation they will choose to follow. If I abuse my –or my blog's- meager influence, I will eventually lose whatever credibility I've managed to build with my readers. How many times can I send people to a crap restaurant before they stop reading my blog? In the end it's up to the readers and not those of us espousing our subjective opinions about restaurants. And it's not worth getting our knickers tied up in a knot over who is holier than thou. It's hardly up to us anyway.

A while back I came across a funny remark (by someone who called herself Bloviatrix on the food forum Mouthfuls) which gave me a good laugh

..Having eighty years of experience reviewing restaurants means nothing except that [one is] old.

Of course the comment wasn't to be taken literally, but there's certainly enough truthiness in it to give me a smile.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of transparency, let me clear up a few things people have asked on email. I don't think that any of this will be completely news to my regular readers here, but it's probably worth repeating again.

The question of Manresa
It shouldn't be news to you that my partner is David Kinch who is the chef/owner of Manresa. When David and I began dating, I naturally stopped writing about Manresa. I was no longer a dispassionate observer of the restaurant, so my review or report wouldn't be useful to anyone. The silence lasted about a year. Then when David and I moved in together, he became a part of my life and not writing about him at all on the blog became difficult. I now mention Manresa on the blog, but I don't review the place or the food, nor do I compare them to any restaurant I talk about. What I write about are activities in our lives like the garden and the recent Alain Passard dinners, which I think are all fair game.

Do I take freebies?
No, not really. I don't take free meals. I always pay for my own meals (ok, sometimes David pays for them.) I've never asked for or been given a free meal at any restaurant because of my blog. I've had two free meals with David, but the restaurants were treating David the chef and Pim the arm-candy and nothing at all to do with Pim the blogger. I did not write about either meal. I don't ever want to find myself in a situation where a restaurant can claim that I didn't write a nice post about them because they didn't give me special treatment or comp my meal. So, the rule is, easy enough, I don't write up free meals. Period.

I've sometimes been given extra dishes, but they almost always happen at restaurants where I am a regular. If this happens at a restaurant I do not know, I always raise the tip so it covers whatever the extra cost was for the freebies. It's good restaurant etiquette anyway. (At restaurants where I'm a regular I am likely to over-tip anyway.)

I've been given a few books by publishers whom I have met, but never under the condition that I must review them. I've only written about one of them, and I mentioned the fact that I got the book from the publisher. I don't accept random solicitations of free books on email. I don't accept solicitations from food producers either. My mailbox is always cluttered with those, and I just don't reply to them.

I was invited to the Food & Wine Classic in Aspen last year. I thought it was fun so I took up the magazine on its invitation. I wrote a few posts about it and made clear to everyone that I was there as a guest of the magazine.

Do I announce myself when I visit a restaurant, or do I make people give me a reservation because of my blog?
No. Very often the reservation is not even in my name. Lest you think I am so delusional in my fame that I am compelled to conceal my identity, I should explain that it's basically because I am lazy and why should I be arsed to call for a reservation when my far-more-enterprising friends are always happy to do it?

The only time I scored a reservation because of my blog was at Zuni last summer. I had friends visiting from out of town and we decided on a short notice to have lunch at Zuni. As we were a large table of 8 (6, actually), we couldn't get a table at our desired time. The restaurant offered to take our reservation for an earlier table. I agreed, and politely asked if they would be willing to take my name and phone number down so that they could let me know if a later table opened up. I gave them my name and mobile number, as would anyone else. I received a phone call from the restaurant an hour or so later, informing me that we could, after all, have a table at the time we wanted. The receptionist then asked if I was the Pim of Chez Pim, and let me know that he enjoyed my blog. That situation was hardly, I am The Pim of Chez Pim and You Must Give Me My Table When I Want It. That the person at the other end of the line happened to recognize my name was not exactly my doing.

Come to think of it, the only time I've ever referred to my blog when making a reservation was at Pierre Gagnaire a year or two ago. I normally use an unusual reservation route, having to do with knowing someone there and nothing at all about Chez Pim. On that occasion, we needed a reservation on a short notice, as David was with me in Paris for just a few days. My usual means of reservation was out of town, so I was left to deal with the normal reservationist on email. Since I am a regular of sort at the restaurant, I was hoping that if he saw the pictures on my blog he would recognize me, yes, as a regular and again not anything to do with having a blog at all. It wasn't even successful. We managed to get in for lunch but not for dinner as we wished.

P.S. I forgot to mention that the bean guy Rancho Gordo at the Ferry Plaza market often gives me his beans for free, but I should tell you it's only because I watch his stall and sell his beans while he takes a pee break.

Comments

[Mary]

Oh Pim, you must be hopping mad (frustrated, upset, insert appropriate adjective here) to be writing a post like this. But I think that the negative publicity might in fact be a recognition of the power of the food blog and an indication of the fear of traditional media. Furthermore, I don't think that anyone writing a food blog should have to justify their activity. That's the lovely thing about the internet (so far), the freedom and the leveling of the playing field. I think this is especially the case for such lovely people like you and Sam who are so obviously blogging out of a passion for food and connecting with the food loving virtual community around the world. And you two don't even have ads! Not that I have a problem with the ads. I do my part and make sure to click on the ads on my favorite blogs and am not bothered by them or anything, I'm just making a point. So it appears that people who do this for gratifications other than a paycheck are somehow inferior to people who do it "professionally." To that I say, "What a load of capitalist crap" and I'll keep on reading. Especially you two. These will be the first places I will look when I next make it to the West Coast.

[Alder Yarrow]

Great post, Pim. 100% agree with everything you said.

Sorry for the vapid, oh-so-typical blog comment, but really, I certainly could not have said it better, or even half as good, myself.

[me2i81]

Good rant, Pim...
SF is a journalistic monoculture. If Bauer were doing shady things who would call him on it? Maybe a blogger...

[Mike (Trig's dad)]

For what it's worth, here are my thoughts. You don't need to defend yourself against stupid attacks, but your position as someone known and respected means you need to apply ethical standards, which you plainly do.

1. There's no point trying to address this question in "old world" terms, i.e. should "amateurs" write reviews, are "pros" better placed? The world has changed. We are all empowered now and we need to develop ethics that address the new world. This new world comprises amateur bloggers, professional reviewers and several groups in-between and overlapping. Bloggers are not all in the same class.

2. Genuinely amateur bloggers (such as my son - no adverts, no invitations, etc.) with a few hundred readers can pretty much say what they want. Of course there's a moral responsibility to readers. Otherwise we justify sites promoting anorexia, jihad, etc. But he can say a restaurant is crap and he can take a freebie if he wants to.

3. A full professional should be subject to a code of conduct that embodies ethical rules, as well as operating to a moral code. Obviously it's inappropriate for a professional who has a position of respect and authority and paying readers to take freebies from restaurants. Those at the very top also need to be aware of the effect that their reviews can have on a restaurant and be very certain about their views before expressing them.

4. The problem is for those in-between, like yourself. There's never been a set of rules for bloggers who have thousands or tens of thousands of readers but such rules will emerge with time. Maybe there's a need for an association for bloggers who exceed some threshold level of readership, that sets out rules that its members can sign up to. As more and more bloggers are getting publishing and broadcasting contracts and more professionals are running blogs on the side, something like this is surely necessary.

5. I'm sad when I see bloggers criticising others for being downright commercial. There's an absurd purism about amongst some amateur food bloggers which will get blogging about as far as rugby union got during all those decades of amateurism and isolationism. My son was written to recently by a professional chef who is also a blogger, offering him commission to promote the chef's book via his blog. He turned down the offer because he doesn't want to get into commercial dealings at this point in his career, but neither of us see anything wrong with the offer because the chef makes no pretence to being anything but a professional.

The world is changing and it's very exciting. But change throws up new challenges that need to be addressed. An ethical framework for blogging is surely one of them.

[Jeremy]

Bravo!
I just did an interview with Josh Dechellis and we touched on some of the points you made!

[maria luisa]

I'm a journalist and I'm a blogger. I write about food because I love it, and I write a blog because I know I have lots of readers with internet, and because I also love the freedom to write about whatever I want, with honest feedback from readers.

There are bad journalists and bad bloggers and bad journalists and bloggers every where. There are good journalists every where. There are also very good bloggers that can make a better job than many journalists.

Some journalists, some media, seem to be very worried about internet power, or blogger power. Recently, speaking with some journalists they said to me "Blogs are such a trash". I told them "Blogs are such a trash, that I'm invited to many important news events that take place in Caracas and even other parts of the world so I write about them in my blog. (I just went to Argentina, invited in order to see their vineyards) My blog is as important -or more- as many of the media as the one you work with".

Bloggers don't seem to like me because I'm a journalist, and journalists don't seem to like me because I'm a blogger. I just continue doing what I love most...and hope both, journalists and bloggers, understand that there´s a place for each one of us.

Best of us will do better, no matter if we're journalists or bloggers or both.

[elarael]

Ah...I am so glad you did take the time to contribute to this debate because you are calling it from the core of the blogosphere. Your educated and worldly perspective clearly articulates just why and how bloggers have earned the respect and attention of people who love food and support the restaurant industry.

To inform people knowledgably is a service that entitles one to a bit of power. If that threatens a few people, well...is the evolution of an industry is perhaps too fast for some?

[Mike Sowden]

Superb post and impassioned rant.
...
Reviews are an odd concept. Absolutely they are subjective and contextual and deeply, deeply personalised. Yet they still end up being bandied around as something approaching objective.
The problem doesn't lie with the journalists and bloggers, and the increasingly indistinct blur between them. The problem rests with the people reading them, and their reaction, as you note.
.....
As for bloggers lacking codes of conduct, it almost doesn't matter, because they can still get nailed to the wall by the general public as much as any professional journalist....? It's a version of the Wikipedia argument: since it's edited by the general public, it's uninformed and misleading and false? Not for long it isn't. If someone puts something up that is genuinely ridiculous it is quickly spotted and removed. The accountability of bloggers is proportional to the size of their audience, their online reach - and feedback helps them get their facts straight. It happens quicker than in traditional journalism, too. If they write falsehoods, they lose their online credibility, even if they gain publicity & 'hits'.
.....
But - backtracking - with reviews, whatever the medium, they are loaded with subjectivity. Reviews aren't facts. They're opinions. And that can be their *strength*.

[lucette]

Well and entertainly said. Also, I love the word "truthiness."

[Howard Vaan]

I'm in broad agreement with what you say - the idea that a writer is more objective merely because of the presence of an editor is somewhat laughable, I sure that many are less so as a result. This is, of course, not to say that bloggers can be objective . . . as you point out.

On the point about being able to objectively judge a classic dish . . . as chefs (hopefully) become more innovative I think this skill will become less valuable.

[Harold]

Hi,

I thought that I could refrain from adding my thoughts to this discussion but had a few extra minutes this afternoon and could not resist.
First, I read and re-read the Chronicle article and it did not come across to me as strongly as I read in your post, Pim. Perhaps I missed some of the nuances that you and others picked up on.
Yes, it did point toward food critics as being established (more qualified?) and there were quotes from newspaper reviewers that were a bit condescending toward bloggers, but even most of those quoted gave some due to these volunteer restaurant reviewers.
That said, there may be ethical issues to consider for all reviewers--paid or not. You do address those nicely.
One thing that I think you, and even the Chronicle article implies, is that reviews have become highly democratized--and with the internet, it runs the entire gamut of products and services--bloggers write about all sorts of stuff that we consume. In some cases, there may be too much information and noise to help make judgments.
Now, for restaurant reviews, I would like to think that I could do it, too. I probably would enjoy it. I'd certainly be willing to give it a go, but I am limited by my budget.

From that standpoint, as a consumer of reviews, I enjoy reading many of the reviews. I do use them, especially when I'm going to another city but try to use them judiciously. For example, I have used your write ups in this blog to help plan some meals that I ate in Europe last summer. (Kudos for that, I might add.) I also generally read the (online version of) print reviewers for the newspapers in a city as well. I try to form an opinion about the writer as well as the restaurant, so that I can find a place that is consistent with my tastes.
As an example of that, I used to use Zagat's as a resource but over the years I have found that the many contributors to that often have tastes that differ from mine, so I turn to this source less often and seek out other sources that are closer to my own tastes. But all this is so much easier with the internet and having the world at your fingertips, where there are so many people with the time and energy to make these contributions.
You bring up Robert Parker. Some people criticize him and the types of wines that he, purportedly, prefers and the response of winemakers to these preferences. This may be true. Also, many criticize his use of the 100 point scale for wines. And if a reader only works from these numbers, then Parker's ratings may have problems. But if you read his actual reviews, you can glean from them whether you think that a particular wine will appeal to you. Those folks talk about calibrating your preferences against Parker's (or some other reviewer's) preferences. Then, I think, it is possible to use the reviews very helpfully.
So, all power to the blogger, but to paraphrase a well-worn cliche, let the reader beware.
Harold

[Annapurna]

One word: Brilliant

Two words and a hyphen: Spot-on

[Rossco]

It sounds to me that this is about power and jealousy.

Newspapers are there to sell copy. Blogs normally initiate because of passion and come in to the professional sphere. They therefore take power and money away from the old media, ergo they don't like it.

I also personally find that most newspaper reviewers are much more subjective than you Pim! e.g in the UK: AA Gill, Giles Coren, Michael Winner etc.

It's about their ego and not so much about the food...which in my mind is a big turn off. Hence why i enjoy sites like this...

x

[ulterior epicure]

well, put pim. well put.

[Richard]

Having worked a restaurant reviewer for magazines and newspapers, I have a different perspective than many.

I wrote about this article, and yours, because it's been on my mind for sometime.

You're absolutely right in suggesting that it's all depends upon the person. Not every newpaper critic is worth the money they're being paid, and you can easily see that in the Canadian province where I live.

But I will make this point. I’m certain that more great food and wine articles are found in the traditional media than they are on food and wine blogs. Newspaper reviewers are always the top people in the business. Like anything, some are, some aren’t. It’s the process that makes them better.

At the best newspapers, reviewers write and rewrite their columns. They sweat the small stuff, check facts, and visit a dining room repeatedly to confirm impressions. And once the column is written, and rewritten, the article gets passed on to one or more editors, who work to tighten the copy, and correct misunderstandings or mistakes. Then it’s back to the reviewer, who often rewrites again. And then, with more back and forth the story is printed.

Bloggers who don’t think that creates writing of a higher caliber must not care about writing. Editors who know their shit will always improve a story. Bloggers who don’t spend as much time with their prose can’t be as satisfying to read. It’s impossible.

That's the point everyone seems to have missed. It's not so much about ethics, it's about the process of writing.

One old adage about writing is still true today: I can write better than anyone who can write faster; and I can write faster than anyone who can write better.

Salut!

[Steve Sando]

Actually, sales improve when I leave my booth at your command. Please come work for me. I'll throw in a dozen tortillas!

[Jon F.]

Hi Pim,

I just added you to my blogroll, first of all.

Also, I really liked this post. Here in DC, the reviewer for the Washington Post, Tom Sietsema, acts like somewhat of a rockstar, and local foodies have learned to beware of him. It seems that the process for becoming a food reviewer for a newspaper is about as random and meritocratic as becoming a blogger, and at least the democratization of the reviewing process has the chance of letting the genuine food experts shine. Keep up your work, it's really excellent, and check out my blog (www.thegourmetpig.com) sometime. Send me an email too if you want, I'd love to pick your brain about food and food writing (I just decided to become a chef).

Jon
www.thegourmetpig.com

[Jon F.]

Hi Pim,

I just added you to my blogroll, first of all.

Also, I really liked this post. Here in DC, the reviewer for the Washington Post, Tom Sietsema, acts like somewhat of a rockstar, and local foodies have learned to beware of him. It seems that the process for becoming a food reviewer for a newspaper is about as random and meritocratic as becoming a blogger, and at least the democratization of the reviewing process has the chance of letting the genuine food experts shine. Keep up your work, it's really excellent, and check out my blog (www.thegourmetpig.com) sometime. Send me an email too if you want, I'd love to pick your brain about food and food writing (I just decided to become a chef).

Jon
www.thegourmetpig.com

[pim]

just to let you know Im not ignoring the comments here. Im in southern italy with no internet connection to speak of. Will get back to this when Ive got internet again next week.

cheers,
Pim

[Alex B]

Blogging is still so new and expanding and open to anyone that the quality of restaurant reviews that many of them might offer is unreliable. But clearly there are blogs that equal if not exceed the quality of pieces written by professional journalists, and, Pim, I regard your blogs as being one of these overachieving ones.

[thunder]

hey chez pim and the food lovers!
thunder is saying hello from finland, i just started my own blog, it´s all in finish but if somebody is intrested i can try tranlating it!

[George @ feedingfashionistas.com]

Having worked as a music reviewer in the past, I know that after the 200th rock CD, I had just about run out of jeers and superlatives (not to mention patience). Professional critics can get jaded, and most do, I'd say.

A qualified, enthusiastic foodie's take on a restaurant carries more weight for me than that of a review in a mag or newspaper, these days. The foodie is far more likely to bash the place if it's awful (no ad revenue to think of), more likely to gush appropriately if it's spectacular (no stoic impartiality to uphold) and uniquely endowed with the mechanism to retract their flames or endorsements if things change by their next visit.

Furthermore, reading such things, beautifully written by great food bloggers is simply more fun, and far more real-time.

Don't get me started on Yelp "reviews", though ;)

[Richard]

Sorry for the typo... It should read: Newspaper reviewers aren't always the top people in the business!

[L'auteur]

While a review is always subjective, Journalists have to check their facts: Alain Passard is not an autodidact, as you mentioned, but was trained by Michel Kéréver, Gaston Boyer and Alain Senderens. Dr. Miguel Sanchez Romera is not a brain-surgeon, but a neurologist (and was in deep trouble when you had the worst meal of your life - which is no excuse for a bad meal). And: A good reviewer should be detached from the culinary mainstream: Neither the Michelin nor the writings of the "Emperor of wine" are holy books.