[hollywood]

Free Meal = Good Review?

[Wilfrid1]

Oh good, that gives us useful background for a discussion which was surfacing on the Seasoning of a Chef thread.

It couldn't be clearer:

"The code of ethics widely observed, and codified by the Assn. of Food Journalists, recommends reviewers dine anonymously when possible, and not make reservations under their own names. Reviewers should not write about restaurants run by friends. ... Failure to maintain that objective distance violates the basic contract with people who turn to reviews for guidance."

It also emphasizes what the real issue is. It's not so much that a restaurant can turn out a better performance for a critic than an ordinary customer (sometimes that happens of course) - it's the decision which restaurants to write about at all:

"...Mariani clearly makes judgment calls — a critic's basic task — when he decides which restaurants make the list, or which he recommends in his newsletter."

And it recognizes the difference between comps and assignments, for which a journalist quite properly claims expenses:

"While a current freelance assignment might be above-board, it's hard for editors to know if a writer has accepted comps on earlier trips."

Good piece.

[The Scream]

Quote

"He may be confusing this four-page list of demands with a one-page memo that we, as a PR agency, drafted internally on behalf of our client, which is what we do for any VIP journalist," said Janet Isabelli, executive director of Wagstaff Worldwide's Midwest office in Chicago, which no longer represents Cantu. Isabelli declined to provide a copy of the memo but said "it outlines the protocols for the evening, things they should know about the journalist" — kind of a publicists' Zagat guide to the critic.

Journalists have PR agents? VIP journalist?

Now how did I already know that?

[mitchells]

Quote

Good piece.

FG thinks the piece is shallow and a waste of time.

Ruhlmann then accuses him of being afraid he's going to lose his free meals.

Quite humorous.

[tanabutler]

Free meals have got to be one of the only rewards for enduring the thankless task of being a volunteer for eGullet.

This post has been edited by tanabutler: 03 November 2005 - 09:02 PM

[Wilfrid1]

Actually, I didn't notice Shaw's opinion on the piece - but then he and I have always disagreed about this. I think the piece accurately reflects the reality of what critics can and cannot accept - although there are many grey areas.

I was once offered a crate of champagne if I could get a front-page mention for a particular artist. I explained, truthfully, that I had no influence over what got on the front page. I could only write my piece. I wanted the front page too, but I didn't know what the competition was from week to week. They did get a front page mention, I got my champagne. If I had had any influence over the editorial process, I would have turned down the champagne.

[tanabutler]

From the LA Times article:

Quote

However, Esquire declined to detail which restaurant visits Esquire paid for, or which restaurants that made it to the "20 Best" didn't charge Mariani.

Quote

Yet even Martinez was surprised to learn about Mariani's approach to reviewing. "You would hope that people writing reviews would not let the restaurant know they are coming," she said.

Such tours muddy the ethical waters even for publications with stringent guidelines. While a current freelance assignment might be above-board, it's hard for editors to know if a writer has accepted comps on earlier trips.

Those things seem incredibly damning, no matter what Mr. Mariani claims is okay.

I certainly have a new understanding of the ethics of pimping and shilling.

[Miguel Gierbolini]

Has anyone posted this?

The Jim Dixon deal

I forget whether he is a member.

[The Scream]

Quote

"it outlines the protocols for the evening, things they should know about the journalist"

A PR agency sends a memo outlining the protocols for the evening? Why does the restaurant need to know anything about the journalist? Or even know that a journalist is there? That's not journalisim. That's a moocher and a special treatment seeker.

[Rail Paul]

Miguel Gierbolini, on Nov 3 2005, 07:23 PM, said:

Has anyone posted this?

The Jim Dixon deal

I forget whether he is a member.

Thanks for posting that, Miguel.

Two points of view, described in well reasoned, literate arguments. But, I'd suspect if Mr Dixon's restaurant reviews were out of line with the experiences of the readership over time, Mr Dixon would be a former restaurant reviewer.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, if a reviewer expresses positions at huge variance with many other observers (Mix, OTTO's pizza, for example), the matter will eventually come to light.

[yvonne johnson]

I just thought I'd throw this in: Ethics, more specifically rules related to gift-giving, as they apply to other professional groups.

In most helping professions: nursing, social work, medicine, psycho-therapy, a professional would be allowed by their agency and association's code of ethics to receive a gift from a client that was considered a token gesture, that was something that was considered everyday. So, a bunch of flowers, a box of chocolates etc would be OK. (Some agencies have policies that stipulate NO gift-giving at all, but they are the exception, I think.)

Anyway, a ten course tasting menu at Ducasse would not be accepted, because of the apparent impropriety. Why this should be so difficult to grasp is beyond me.

[Carolyn Tillie]

I am going to be the dissenter because that of the reviews I write... Yep, I'm comped meals all the time. I've got to be because those for whom I write could never afford to pay for those meals.

I don't think it makes me any less objective and I don't think I get better service or meals because the meal is comped. Jeez, my accounting of Dry Creek Kitchen is an attest to that -- the place was atrocious and they KNEW I was there to review it!

I will grant that publications such as Esquire should have enough resources to have their writers be able to review anonymously, but tons of the smaller publications which many readers rely on simply do not have those funds and rely on "media tastings" and Fam trips.

A comped meal NEVER guarantees a good review! We who have to tread this fine line know how difficult it is to be objective.

[ngatti]

Carolyn Tillie, on Nov 4 2005, 10:16 AM, said:

We who have to tread this fine line know how difficult it is to be objective.

Which is exactly the point.

Would you have any problem informing your readers of the comp in the body of a review?

[Carolyn Tillie]

ngatti, on Nov 4 2005, 09:38 AM, said:

Carolyn Tillie, on Nov 4 2005, 10:16 AM, said:

We who have to tread this fine line know how difficult it is to be objective.

Which is exactly the point.

Would you have any problem informing your readers of the comp in the body of a review?

Not at all - if I were given more than a 300 word-count limitation... My reviews are purposefully short for whom I write. It is actually harder to encapsulate a restaurant's intention, decor, and cuisine in 300 words than it is, say, 800 or 1,200. In less than 300 words, I can't disclose that I didn't pay for the meal.

[Wilfrid1]

Rail Paul, on Nov 3 2005, 10:09 PM, said:

As has been mentioned elsewhere, if a reviewer expresses positions at huge variance with many other observers (Mix, OTTO's pizza, for example), the matter will eventually come to light.

I quite liked Bid first time I went.