9 replies to this topic

[Mark Slater]

Tom on top, Tim at the bottom.

[Ericandblueboy]

Thanks to this community, I don't usually bother to read critics' reviews. As for Tom's being at the top....not sure I agree. I read his chats and generally find myself disagreeing with him.

[daveo]

I'd like to hear from the operators themselves. I can't think that any today have the impact of reviewers pre web. I recall a friend of mine had opened his first restaurant in the area in the 80's and it had gotten a rave review from Phyllis Richman. I saw him for the first time in a while coincidentally shortly after the review and it made him ecstatic, let alone had enormous impact on the popularity and success of the restaurant.

Does any reviewer have that kind of impact today?

[Escoffier]

Thanks to this community, I don't usually bother to read critics' reviews. As for Tom's being at the top....not sure I agree. I read his chats and generally find myself disagreeing with him.

I tend to agree with you. I think Tom might be a nice guy and probably doesn't kick his dog at night when he goes home, but he's been here way too long and has become way too pedestrian. Tom needs to go somewhere else now...his face and his opinions are way too commonplace.

[zoramargolis]

That Tim Carman was included in this will give you an idea of how unscientific (and bogus) this survey was. It's been a long time since Tim has done any restaurant revues. Can't recall exactly when he moved to the Post from City Paper, but it's been a few years. So why was he included in a review of critics, all the rest of whom are currently reviewing restaurants, whiie other prominent local critics weren't included? My guess is because someone was approached to "fill in the blanks" of a telephoned survey who has been nursing a personal grudge against him and took the anonymous opportunity to stab him in the back. That Tim, who had always been scrupulously ethical about not accepting any comps was "rated" lower on the ethics scale than critics like John Mariani who is well known for demanding that luxury meals (and wines) be comped before he agrees to review a place, and others who have solicited free catering, is abominable. Those of us who have the privilege of knowing Tim and know how knowledgeable he is, and what a decent human being he is, as well as a damned good writer can't help but be outraged on his behalf. Because people will read it and believe it is the truth. It is most assuredly not.

[Heather]

Zora, I'm in full agreement with you. I was more than a little shocked to see Tim on the list.

[Tujague]

When I saw Tim on here, I honestly wondered if they made a mistake, and had intended to include Todd Kliman, which would make much more sense. The LA Times is the only other paper to have two critics rated, in a market that is many times over larger than DC's. Idiotic.

[DonRocks]

My guess is because someone was approached to "fill in the blanks" of a telephoned survey who has been nursing a personal grudge against him and took the anonymous opportunity to stab him in the back.

Zora, I'm in full agreement with you.

When I saw Tim on here, I honestly wondered if they made a mistake

Seeing as though I'm a believer in personal and corporate accountability, this thread has now been titled accordingly.

Very well-done, "hard-hitting" piece, Mr. Bovino.

[zoramargolis]

This list seems like it's culled from the major newspapers and magazines nationwide.

I don't agree. I think he emailed a couple of chefs in each city included and asked them what local critics should be on the list and how they would rate them. Plus some with national reputations like Jonathan Gold, Mariani and Ozersky.

[darkstar965]

That Tim Carman was included in this will give you an idea of how unscientific (and bogus) this survey was. It's been a long time since Tim has done any restaurant revues. ... Those of us who have the privilege of knowing Tim and know how knowledgeable he is, and what a decent human being he is, as well as a damned good writer can't help but be outraged on his behalf. Because people will read it and believe it is the truth. It is most assuredly not.

Zora, I'm in full agreement with you. I was more than a little shocked to see Tim on the list.

When I saw Tim on here, I honestly wondered if they made a mistake, and had intended to include Todd Kliman, which would make much more sense. The LA Times is the only other paper to have two critics rated, in a market that is many times over larger than DC's. Idiotic.

One of the regular examples of why donrockwell.com is such a great resource for so many of us. I've never met Tim Carman but have read him regularly and like his stuff quite a bit. It seemed odd to me too that he was even on the list let alone at the bottom of it. Now I better understand why. Thank you all.