On the Sifton thing: what's interesting about it is that photographs of him are readily available, while the Association of Food Journalists' guidelines advises:
Reviews should be conducted anonymously whenever possible. Critics should experience the restaurant just as ordinary patrons do. Reservations should be made in a name other than that of the reviewer and meals should be paid for using cash or credit cards in a name other than the critic. Take care to make reservations from telephones outside of work; many restaurants have caller identification systems. Just because a workstation telephone has a "blocked" telephone number doesn't mean the call won't be tagged as coming from the publication. Reviewers who have been recognized may want to make note of that in the review, especially if the treatment they receive differs markedly from what nearby tables are receiving. While anonymity is important when dining out, reviewers should write under their real names, not a pseudonym. Readers should also be able to respond to the reviews; a work telephone number or e-mail for the reviewer or the supervisory editor should be included with the review.Emphasis added, because that's the key, right? While there's only so much truffle oil a bad chef can employ to cover up his failings, a restaurant critic is most useful to his readers when there is no special treatment whatsover. Perhaps in this day and age it's impossible to find anyone under 35 whose photograph can't be found ...
No comments:
Post a Comment