Home > Table Talk > Archives > 2008 > June > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShould 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
Comments
By Mike
June 30, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
I get all that “anonymous” stuff and the special treatment business. What I’m most interested in are the credit cards with the false names. How does one get those? Details please!
By Jim V.
June 30, 2008 9:27 AM | Link to this
I’ve always thought Ruth Reichl was on to something by going to restaurants in disguise. I’m not sure that’s practical, but for those of us who have plunked down $300 for a dinner after receiving indifferent service at a restaurant praised for its service, the idea seems like a good one.
For what it’s worth I’ve not had such experience based on one of your reviews.
By cubalibre
June 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
Ms. Ford makes good points; however, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that she should’ve used “their” instead of its homophone, “they’re”. (Don’t mean to seem nitpicky, but this is a mistake that I wouldn’t expect to see from her…)
By Joe
June 30, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
I worked for 11 years at one of the major restaurants referred to by Ms. Ford, and she is correct in her assessment of what goes on when a food critic is recognized by the staff. However, I would also like to point out that recognition of a critic in no way changes the fact that bad food is bad food - that’s something that you can’t cover up. On the other hand, I do applaud the fact that she mentions in her reviews when she knows that her service has improved - that’s one of the main reasons that one restaurant is chosen over another so full disclosure is much appreciated by this reader.
By Whitney
June 30, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
Ruth Reichl described her method for getting false name credit cards in her book. She properly applies for the credit card in her own name. On most applications, there is a place where you can have additional cards made for the account, and all that they ask for is a name. So you can put any name on the additional card you wish, but the actual account is completely legit.
By DM
June 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Restaurants would to well to keep in mind that many companies and restaurant owners will employ “secret shoppers” to visit their restaurant and give reviews to whomever is paying for that service. I know someone who does this on a regular basis and I know some of the “top” places in Atlanta have been slaughtered by her because she -does- have anonimity and they don’t know who she is so they can’t adjust accordingly.
By Meridith Ford
June 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
Cubalibre: Thanks for catching that; it was about 5:40 am and I hadn’t had enough coffee. I’ll change it now. About Ruth Reichl: Her books make for some fun reading, and she is one of the greatest critics the Times has ever had. But don’t think that because she wore a disguise she didn’t go unrecognized. Her picture (in a hat, of course) is on the cover of the now classic “Dining Out,” by Andrew Dornenburg and Karen Page, photographed at Vong in NYC — does anyone actually think the staff didn’t know what was going on when that photo was shot?
By Damien
June 30, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
I’m glad you brought this up, but to be honest, most restaurants that depend on the AJC for a review know who you are. The others, I don’t think it matters. It does seem that you mention the same restaurants from the same chefs or chains over and over again. I mean, you have raved about Tom Catherall and I can’t remember the last time I went to one of their restaurants and had a good meal and for that matter the same is true for Bob Amick’s places. The food reviews in the Times and the Post are VERY well written and almost always point out flaws even when bestowing a crown to the chef. I rarely see a bad review from you, at least not from any of the big players in the city.
By Damien
June 30, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
I’m glad you brought this up, but to be honest, most restaurants that depend on the AJC for a review know who you are. The others, I don’t think it matters. It does seem that you mention the same restaurants from the same chefs or chains over and over again. I mean, you have raved about Tom Catherall and I can’t remember the last time I went to one of their restaurants and had a good meal and for that matter the same is true for Bob Amick’s places. The food reviews in the Times and the Post are VERY well written and almost always point out flaws even when bestowing a crown to the chef. I rarely see a bad review from you, at least not from any of the big players in the city.
By Meridith Ford
June 30, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Hey Damien: Are you sure you’re reading the AJC? I haven’t exactly been a fan of any of Tom Catherall’s restaurants. I gave Shout one star. I gave Piebar (Amick, who you also mention) one star.
By Stacey
June 30, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
DM…Like your friend, I have also worked as a mystery shopper. I for each survey, I was given a date span and time of day to complete the visit. I’ve been fortunate to get excellent service and food with each mystery shop visit I did although I did have to send something back once because it wasn’t cooked as I requested. The mystery shop visits I have done for grocery and convenience store where for specific things such as to see if the clerk asked for ID when I tried to purchase alcohol or tobacco.
By pete
June 30, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this
It’s so hard to find a good restaurant. Consistency is the problem. Some nights food is wonderful anywhere.
It helps to let yourself get really hungry. Then everything tastes good.
Have you noticed some of these waiters who talk the menu specials really get salacious and start to salivate as they mention certain food items? They practically drool and spit all over you, and then start to smack their lips and make wet swilling sounds. “Today’s specials include steak seasoned (swirlzz) with a sauteed (ssslluurrpssiss) mushroom glaze (swillss) sauce (szslupsupss)…….”
Excuse, me, uh, waiter? I hate to interupt you, but I have a question.
“No problem, what is it?”
Shut the f up you idiot and get out of here. We want another waiter.
“Well!”
By scott
July 1, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
reminds of barney and the gold truck episode on andy griffith
By Marki
July 1, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Hrm….what if I go along with Ms. Ford and exclaim loudly “This must be another one of those places that think you’re…ya know, HER.” Keep feeding me reviews. I eat vicariously through you. Best, Marki
By MC
July 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Were you surprised that you were noticed at Parish. You are a joke of a journalist. You always get noticed because you want to be noticed. How do you explain the 10 horrible reviews on Citysearch versus your glowing three stars. Probably because, as usual, they knew that you were there. A restaurant needs to be consistent. Chefs rarely cook or taste during the shift. They might expedite. However, since they know it is for you, they make sure that it is as good as it can be. You don’t receive the inconsistent food that the kitchen has been serving to everyone else. Case in point, Parish.