It's a rough gig, being a restaurant critic. Sure, you're dining on the paper's dime, but plenty of the food is lousy, disgruntled restaurateurs and fleet-footed bloggers are constantly trying to unmask you and a lot of people think you could just as easily be replaced by Yelp posters.
I don't have a horse in this race. Eatocracy isn't a restaurant review site, and while I have reviewed restaurants for publications in the past, it's not part of my current job. With that out of the way - I believe wholeheartedly in professional restaurant criticism. These people eat like it's their goshdarned job because it IS. As much as it seems like the gig would be all foie gras fountains and Champagne sippy cups, it's physically grueling to go out night after night after night, roping in a slew of friends, family and acquaintances willing to play by the rules (ordering things they'd rather not, calling you by a different name, passing a plate of a favored dish after a few bites...), ducking the camera at all social events and yeah - having to eat some truly horrifying meals. No, it's not ditch-digging nor is it emergency cardiac surgery, but it does call for a tremendous amount of rigor. Some bloggers, Yelpers and other non-paid reviewers, to be sure, have put in the time and cash to have an all-encompassing knowledge of the food in their community - but that's certainly not the vast majority, and who's to say that some of them don't have an axe to grind? It's a critic's job to put his or her mouth where the paper's money is, know how a restaurant's dishes stack up against the competition, be versed in the vagaries of the restaurant world, be able to translate experience to prose that's both appealing and useful to their readership and remain thoroughly unbiased throughout. At the profession's worst, you get schnorrers out for a free meal and at its best - a Pulitzer can be had. Restaurateurs and chefs love and hate 'em. Half the population thinks they themselves could do the job better with their fork hand bound behind their back. What's your take on restaurant critics? Talk all smart below and we just might feature your comments in an upcoming post. Previously – Do you pay attention to negative online reviews? |
  Recent Posts
 |
 |
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
I got a little moist when I saw someone had posted on a lunchtime poll. Obviously not a recent one.
But this one is a classic. =)
Food reviewers are like movie critics. They take themselves far too seriously and value the arcane and esoteric more than what an average person would want. Their place no longer is needed if in fact that it ever was.
While I can appreciate a review or commentary on anything, one person's opinion that I do not know is not going to sway my going to try something. (A family member or good friend's review might) And while this might be their job, I believe that attempting to be pernicious is overboard.
You had a bad meal or bad experience. Fine. We have all had at least one somewhere, but really...
I think food critics are not what they used to be, and that they take themselves way too seriously and have become bloated with self importance.
Let's hope that reviews like this are because of your job and not your self image. If it is the latter, it explains a lot.
I read professional critics to get a feel for the restaurant; style of food, ambiance, bar scene, level of service, etc. If a place has great food, but crappy service, then the dining event is ruined for me. My local critic (Phila. Inq.) visits a review restaurant more than once, because any place or chef can have an "off" night or unfortunate incidents ~ air conditioning conks out or whatever.
I also almost NEVER trust anyone who tells me that a restaurant is just "great ~ they give you so much!" Dead giveaway to me that this place is probably not very good, just big portions.
Food critics that terrorize hotel owners unfairly must be ousted. Who better to do that than hotel owners themselves. It is unfortunate but a person's scathing criticisms can cost a hotel owner his business and create prejudices among the public. Anyways, i think it's unfair to critique someone after eating at their place....And actually get paid for it, heck...that's not even a job....I never read their fancy reviews anyway...am qualified enough to make my own decisions.
HELL NO! Food critics are narcissistic wastes of human beings. Over and over again they cause people to lose their jobs, just because 'they' didn't enjoy eating there. You know what? That's too freakin' bad. Go get a real job, you self-centered aholes.
I usually find food critics to be a bit too snobby for my taste, but I'll still listen to what they have to say. What they may know about food can't be replicated. I mostly read online reviews though when deciding if a place is worth my business. I'm more interested in atmosphere and value. The food critic in the paper may be able to list all the reasons why the ingredients in a restaurants signature dish may or may not work, but I trust my peers (either friends or online reviewers) to tell me if the restaurant is a great place for dates or attend happy hour.
The difference/qualification between a good critic and the masses is a chasm; unfortunately, the egos of many lead them to believe they can leap over it as if they were a hacker in the Matrix.
Good critics' opinions matter because of the insight/training and experience. Good critics know what to look for and can answer why something is good (or bad); they understand the process/development behind the product. All things being relative, few can match the experience of a critic. An average person may sample something weekly, or even daily, but has he also sampled the pinnacle of the product, its history or how it has changed over the times and cultures? The more one has sampled and understand a product, the better once can judge.
A casual restaurant is going to be a $50+ experience. One for a special occasion is going to run into 3 and often 4 figures, not to mention the impact it can have on you and your company. With all that on the line, am I going to trust the opinions of someone online that doesn't have anything at stake? **** that. I'll go with those that have solid knowledge of the field and whose livelihood/career depends on just that.
Just look for The Big Trucks in the parking lot. We always know the Best places to eat. Roll Tide!
Yup that is the truth. ILike my pop, I bet you can name off places all over the country.
SoooooooTrue! And we can name The Best Bars too!
Yup. He found this place in downtown Norfolk called Uncle Louies. Restaurant and bar. The best cold draft beer, pool tables and the best dang food. Too bad it is not there anymore.
But not always the best bar of soap, if ANY soap.
Zing!
We all know JDizz's opinion!
For me it depends on the reviewer and the importance of the place I'm looking at eating. If the reviewer is consistently mean, nitpicky or misleading, and especially if I've eaten at the restaurant and enjoyed it every bit as much as the reviewer hated it, I don't trust them at all. If the reviewer is generally balanced and fair, I'm far more likely to rely on their opinion – at least on what they report about the experience, the service, the ambiance, etc. Matters of taste are so subjective, I might give the place a chance even if the reviewer I trust says it's awful on taste alone. My tastes often differ from the majority.
Word of mouth is actually MUCH more important to me. I'm about 30x more likely to go to a place if someone I know or follow regularly online raves about it than if I read a good review in the paper.
I love online reviews also. It gives you a chance to see what people who have the same level of food knowledge as you do think, which is likely to be much similar to your actual tastes. If a master chef says he hates the food, chances are I like it fine because my tastes aren't trained the way his are. But if Joe1234 writes that the food was nothing special, and the restaurant smelled like sewage, I'm thinking I don't want to go there. Of course you always, always take online reviews with a grain of salt. But if the restaurant has 50 reviews and 48 of them say the restaurant was bad, and 2 say it's the best EVAR, you know it's probably not that great of a place.
I appreciate food critic's opinions and read them often in my local paper and other various magazines. However, the common persons' palate is generally not going to notice or care how certain foods complement each other. They are going to notice if it satisfies them, if they felt good afterwards, had good service and felt comfortable with the style of restaurant. I appreciate knowing the style of food and feel of the restaurant better than the intricacies of the sauce that was on their meat. If they tailored their opinions more to the general public than to elite foodies, I think they would have more support.
I greatly enjoy reading a critique from a professional critic but I find critiques from everyday average Joes to be more useful for me.
Good article and you made me look up schnorrers.
I love, LOVE that word.
I missed that and promptly had to look it up myself.
Know what word I like? FanortnerHead.
Jdizz and groovygoober are famous!
We can always say we knew them when....
When we openly complained a lot/bestowed our great wisdom?