"critic" news and stories

Time Out New York has just done something a bit unusual. They have turned the tables on New York's critics and have given them reviews using a panel of distinguished experts in each of the various fields covered. Of course, at Slashfood, we're more interested in what they thought of NY's finest food critics, than of the art or theater reviewers. All were scored on a scale from 1 to 5 in the following categories: Knowledge, Style, Taste, Accessibility and Influence. Those scores were then averaged to reach a final score. A star rating might have been a little more appropriate, but this seems like a balanced way to quantify their performances.

Topping their list with a score of 4.08 is Peter Meehan, from the New York Times. He is usually featured in the "$25 and Under" column. His reviews were described as "smart, witty and very sensible...fair and almost always [place] the consumer first." Number two, with a score of 3.78 is Steve Cuozzo, from the New York Post. "Entertaining as hell to read... it's just too bad that he works for the least credible outlet in town." The other reviewers reviewed were: Adam Platt, multiple publications, 3.72 (No class at all: The words subtle and elegant are not in his vocabulary."); Irene Sax, NY Daily News, 3.68 ("The best cheap-eats columnist ever."); Frank Bruni, The New York Times, 3.64 ("Bruni is the George Bush of restaurant reviewers: He's a little man in a big job who got lucky but has never acknowledged the need to learn on this big job.... He's got an unfortunate, clear bias toward the Italian palate, and it shows in print."); Robert Sietsema, The Village Voice, 3.4 ("A joke."); Moira Hodgson, New York Observer, 3.3 ("stylish and congenial")

Source

A mystery diner is basically a restaurant critic that doesn't get published. Instead, his or her writeups on the dining experience go back to the restaurant, or the company that owns the restaurant, just to give them feedback on how things are running. The diners don't just look at the food, unlike regular critics (or bloggers who like to report back on their meals!). They have to keep track of the timing of the service, the greetings, the decor and whether the coffee was hot enough throughout their visit. A restaurant can be dinged if the hostess doesn't smile or if the busboy clears the plates the second you pick up your last forkful of food. The restaurant's management will use the information to make changes in layout, service strategy or at any other weak points that are picked out

Although it sounds like it would be a job only for the most detail-oriented diners, it is a way for food-lovers to get free meals, since the payment is compensation for the meal. A typical dinner might include two drinks, one appetizer, two entrees and one dessert, since the diners are not expected to dine alone. One of the companies that provides the service is called www.theeyespy.com, but there are others that operate all over the country, as well. The only downside is that, because of confidentiality agreements, diners aren't supposed to share their opinions with anyone else, even friends and family.

Source

Jonathan Gold just might be the most popular food critic in Los Angeles, especially with Chowhounds, who love him because he spends just as much time in bargain strip-mall finds as he does in higher end restaurants. This week, in the LA Weekly, Gold put out his list of the 99 essential LA restaurants. They're not the best, the most expensive or even the most famous, but they all made the list because they reflect LA and inspire people to think about food in a new way. "And it's also a damned good place to eat."  Gold describes how and why he made his choice for each selection on the list, but even without the extra information, there are too many to list here. As a sampling, the list includes: A.O.C., Border Grill, Campanile, Geisha House, Mama's Hot Tamales Cafe, Pink's, Spago and Wat Thai.

You'll have to read through the whole thing yourself to find out the rest.

Source

I am a big fan of the SF Chronicle's Michael Bauer's blog, Between Meals, and have mentioned issues that he has brought up before. His post yesterday was particularly interesting though, bringing up the issue of whether food critics should somehow be licensed, after a commenter mentioned that there was a lack of standards in the industry.  Such a task, however, might be nearly impossible. Would "taste" be judged? Writing ability? Tests could be implemented in all industries, but the reality of working is that the best way to get good at something is to do it - over and over again. Writers have to write and chefs have to cook. Critics have to learn how to convey the unique experience of dining at a restaurant to their readers because chefs do not all use identical recipes and there is no one "right" way to make a marinara sauce.

As Bauer rightly points out, "Good chefs rise to the top, and good critics develop a following." A good critic's readers can trust what they write and use their recommendation as a means to decide when to try (or not to try) a restaurant. Of the skills a critic needs - ability, knowledge and passion - only one can be taught or tested, while the others come naturally and over time.

The standards of taste are not hard and fast rules and people look to critics to create a baseline, a jumping off point from which they can form their own judgments. The only hard and fast rules I want to see are the ones that the health department enforces.

As organic foods get more popular and end up everywhere from the farmer's market to Wal-Mart, critics are getting louder about whether consumers are getting their money's worth. Unfortunately, they seem to focus on the fact that it has not been proven that organic foods are definitely healthier - as in more nutritious - than their conventionally grown counterparts.

The foods are organically grown, not magically nutritionally enhanced.

Whether someone eventually proves that organic foods have more or less nutritional value than their conventionally grown counterparts, the point of buying organic is supporting the non-use of pesticides and other growth-enhancement techniques in food production. There is a lower risk of ingesting some residual chemical or hormone with organic food. Organics may taste the same as, better than or worse than more conventionally grown produce, since they are not protected from bad weather, etc. (or shielded from particularly good weather), so there is more risk - and more potential reward - for the consumer.

As the organic movement spreads, more consumers will gradually learn more about what the label means and will be able to make informed choices on whether it is something they want to support. It seems short-sighted to say that because there is no clear nutritional difference, that organic food is a waste of time and money.

Source