I was reading a fun story on cracked.net about some of the hardest but silliest sounding jobs. One of these was the restaurant reviewer or food critic. http://www.cracked.com/article_19308_6-silly-sounding-jobs-that-are-way-harder-than-you-think_p2.html
I love the Anthony Bourdain picture at the top of this article...
"Your bad review can ruin some family's business -- and they know where to find you. At least one critic has been threatened with a gun over a bad review. Another has been beaten bloody by the owner's associates (i.e., mob goons) over several bad reviews; to be fair though, he probably shouldn't have posted on his paper's website where he would be dining that night.
You can't think of this as Michael Bay threatening Roger Ebert with a shotgun over a bad review -- they're both famous, that's not going to happen. But as a food critic, you are literally going into enemy territory -- a business owned by some regular guy who you don't know -- assessing the fruits of his labor, and telling everyone in your readership whether or not to give that business their money. That restaurant owner's ability to pay his mortgage can lay on what you write, and you don't know how he's going to react.
Not wanting to become the next bloody statistic, many a critic will go to work in disguise and assume a false name -- whatever is deemed necessary to stay anonymous."
Now I was thinking about this all weekend. Everywhere I ate, any foods I looked at and any interesting people and items I saw, I wondered about how valid those above statements are to me and I came up with an interesting revelation about the food world, as a whole: they don't want the truth. I've said it before in my defense, but I like to give an exact account of my experience from the moment I walk into the front door to the moment I leave the building. Everything gets taken into account from the decorations to the bathrooms. Now the truth is that many magazines, from the RFT to the New Yorker, pay their reviewers to go to a restaurant, eat and then write about the experience. So, their views may already be tainted because they are getting paid for those restaurants. Secondly, in some cases, they are comped for their meal, by the restaurant or given other perks. Would I have liked to have my meal completely paid for when I went to eat at RM: Seafood in Las Vegas? Yes, but it wouldn't have changed my mind or view of the meal. For some reviewers and critics, you have to ask them some questions:
Do you get paid to eat at the restaurant?
Who picks the restaurant?
Did the restaurant pay for your meal?
Dis the restaurant pay you for your nice review?
Did the restaurant buy a large ad in your magazine or paper?
The cost of ads in some papers like the RFT or Ladue Times is enough to consider a trade for a nice review. (I am not suggesting that every restaurant that has a nice review in the RFT, Sauce, Feast or any other magazine or paper in the St. Louis area has paid for their nice review by ad space.) But it could happen.
I love the Anthony Bourdain picture at the top of this article...
"Your bad review can ruin some family's business -- and they know where to find you. At least one critic has been threatened with a gun over a bad review. Another has been beaten bloody by the owner's associates (i.e., mob goons) over several bad reviews; to be fair though, he probably shouldn't have posted on his paper's website where he would be dining that night.
You can't think of this as Michael Bay threatening Roger Ebert with a shotgun over a bad review -- they're both famous, that's not going to happen. But as a food critic, you are literally going into enemy territory -- a business owned by some regular guy who you don't know -- assessing the fruits of his labor, and telling everyone in your readership whether or not to give that business their money. That restaurant owner's ability to pay his mortgage can lay on what you write, and you don't know how he's going to react.
Not wanting to become the next bloody statistic, many a critic will go to work in disguise and assume a false name -- whatever is deemed necessary to stay anonymous."
Now I was thinking about this all weekend. Everywhere I ate, any foods I looked at and any interesting people and items I saw, I wondered about how valid those above statements are to me and I came up with an interesting revelation about the food world, as a whole: they don't want the truth. I've said it before in my defense, but I like to give an exact account of my experience from the moment I walk into the front door to the moment I leave the building. Everything gets taken into account from the decorations to the bathrooms. Now the truth is that many magazines, from the RFT to the New Yorker, pay their reviewers to go to a restaurant, eat and then write about the experience. So, their views may already be tainted because they are getting paid for those restaurants. Secondly, in some cases, they are comped for their meal, by the restaurant or given other perks. Would I have liked to have my meal completely paid for when I went to eat at RM: Seafood in Las Vegas? Yes, but it wouldn't have changed my mind or view of the meal. For some reviewers and critics, you have to ask them some questions:
Do you get paid to eat at the restaurant?
Who picks the restaurant?
Did the restaurant pay for your meal?
Dis the restaurant pay you for your nice review?
Did the restaurant buy a large ad in your magazine or paper?
The cost of ads in some papers like the RFT or Ladue Times is enough to consider a trade for a nice review. (I am not suggesting that every restaurant that has a nice review in the RFT, Sauce, Feast or any other magazine or paper in the St. Louis area has paid for their nice review by ad space.) But it could happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment