Home > Table Talk > Archives > 2008 > June > 30
Monday, June 30, 2008
Should Critics Be Anonymous?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
A recent comment on my last blog entry made a valid point about the anonymity of a dining critic. The comment commended that I acknowledged in my recent review of Home that I had been recognized by the staff at the restaurant, but wondered how unfair that recognition is for the restaurants out there who still don’t know a critic when they see one.
First, some background: It is the policy of the AJC (and all major newspapers) for the dining critic to visit restaurants anonymously. I visit unannounced, use credit cards with false names that do not bear any company signature or trademark and the AJC reimburses me for the cost of my meals. I visit restaurants several times over the course of several weeks, sometimes months, to garner the information needed to write a review. I do not knowingly accept free items from a restaurant; if something doesn’t show up on the bill I ask for it to be put on the bill. If that doesn’t happen, I cover the cost of the item in my tip.
I’ve been at this for a little over four years now at the AJC, and the staffs at many restaurants around the city definitely know what I look like. I do not wear disguises. When I feel that my treatment may have been altered because of this recognition, I mention that in the review.
Now, here’s the gist of the blog comment: What about the restaurants that haven’t figured me out yet? Isn’t that unfair to them?
I’d like to address this on several levels.
All dining critics for major newspapers — from Tom Sietsama at the Washington Post to Frank Bruni at the New York Times — are recognized. Bruni’s picture is all over the internet; all anyone has to do is google him. Some critics have been at this gig for so many years that anonymity is impossible. That doesn’t mean we’re all wining and dining with the chef and getting special treatment. On the contrary. We all work by the same rules, above. Most restaurants actually get the gig and other than pleasant acknowledgments, leave us alone to do our work. Major restaurants in Atlanta who haven’t figured out what the restaurant critics in this town look like aren’t doing their job, frankly.
What changes when a critic is recognized? For the most part, service. All of a sudden I will notice that my server went from having four tables in his station, to one: mine. The owner is paying a lot of attention to me. In the kitchen, several plates of the same thing I’ve ordered might be made and the best is chosen for the table. But think about this: A chef isn’t made in a night, or two, or three (frankly, neither is a waitstaff). If you can cook, you can cook. Nothing about a critic in the house is suddenly going to make a great chef out of you.
It’s my job to assess all this as fairly and as accurately as possible. If I feel something about my visit has been altered enough to make a difference in a review, I mention it in my writing. I do that to protect you, the reader, and those restaurants out there that still haven’t figured out what I look like yet.
Permalink | Comments (15) | Post your comment | Categories: Dining
