In Praise Of The Endangered Restaurant Critic

[monavano]

In Praise of the Endangered Restaurant Critic

Josh Ozersky laments the departure of the Wall Street Journal's restaraunt critic, Raymond Sokolov, and makes his case (with thinly-veiled contempt) that we lay bloggers and reviewers are in part responsible for diluting the sacred and critical waters of good, old-fashioned, objective reporting. Waters that were once roamed by big fish in a small pond.

In the piece, Ozersky mentions the likes of our own Tom Sietstema, who at least had the decency to embark on a career as a food writer with a modicum of culinary experience, unlike Sokolov, whose background is described at "transatlantic" (Postcards, anyone?).

Are we taking over the job of these giants of food reviewing, and do we besmirch their very exsistance with our subjective (and at times passionate) commentary? Are we, in effect, impugning their authority? I ask, because the linchpin of Ozerski's argument is that aside from the reviews generated by a small pantheon of revered food critics, he contends that there is no perspective in restaurant critiquing anymore. Apparently, we "foodies" are all dazzled easily, like a child with a rattle who responds to the sensory stimulation without any true intellectual rigor. A rattle of sashimi over here, a rattle of pate over there.

I found it interesting that he saw nothing positive in our type of community and blog reporting-as though mounting a strong defense against some perceived threat that lay outside of the really tough obstacles such as a decrease in paper readership, an increase in electronic media, and the fact that it is virtually impossible for a food critic to be anonymous these days to ensure a lack of preferential treatment.

Then again, I haven't really fathomed the lengths that Sietsema goes to in order to hide his identity. For some reason, Mrs. Doubtfire comes to mind.

[Miami Danny]

In Praise of the Endangered Restaurant Critic

Josh Ozersky laments the departure of the Wall Street Journal's restaraunt critic, Jason Sokolov, and makes his case (with thinly-veiled contempt) that we lay bloggers and reviewers are in part responsible for diluting the sacred and critical waters of good, old-fashioned, objective reporting. Waters that were once roamed by big fish in a small pond.

In the piece, Ozersky mentions the likes of our own Tom Sietstema, who at least had the decency to embark on a career as a food writer with a modicum of culinary experience, unlike Sokolov, whose background is described at "transatlantic" (Postcards, anyone?).

Are we taking over the job of these giants of food reviewing, and do we besmirch their very exsistance with our subjective (and at times passionate) commentary? Are we, in effect, impugning their authority? I ask, because the linchpin of Ozerski's argument is that aside from the reviews generated by a small pantheon of revered food critics, he contends that there is no perspective in restaurant critiquing anymore. Apparently, we "foodies" are all dazzled easily, like a child with a rattle who responds to the sensory stimulation without any true intellectual rigor. A rattle of sashimi over here, a rattle of pate over there.

I found it interesting that he saw nothing positive in our type of community and blog reporting-as though mounting a strong defense against some perceived threat that lay outside of the really tough obstacles such as a decrease in paper readership, an increase in electronic media, and the fact that it is virtually impossible for a food critic to be anonymous these days to ensure a lack of preferential treatment.

Then again, I haven't really fathomed the lengths that Sietsema goes to in order to hide his identity. For some reason, Mrs. Doubtfire comes to mind.

It's always the same when old-timers get sacked-everyone looks around for someone to blame. Maybe they just weren't very good anymore?

[zoramargolis]

In Praise of the Endangered Restaurant Critic

Josh Ozersky laments the departure of the Wall Street Journal's restaraunt critic, Jason Sokolov, and makes his case (with thinly-veiled contempt) that we lay bloggers and reviewers are in part responsible for diluting the sacred and critical waters of good, old-fashioned, objective reporting. Waters that were once roamed by big fish in a small pond.

In the piece, Ozersky mentions the likes of our own Tom Sietstema, who at least had the decency to embark on a career as a food writer with a modicum of culinary experience, unlike Sokolov, whose background is described at "transatlantic" (Postcards, anyone?).

Are we taking over the job of these giants of food reviewing, and do we besmirch their very exsistance with our subjective (and at times passionate) commentary? Are we, in effect, impugning their authority? I ask, because the linchpin of Ozerski's argument is that aside from the reviews generated by a small pantheon of revered food critics, he contends that there is no perspective in restaurant critiquing anymore. Apparently, we "foodies" are all dazzled easily, like a child with a rattle who responds to the sensory stimulation without any true intellectual rigor.

I found it interesting that he saw nothing positive in our type of community and blog reporting-as though mounting a strong defense against some perceived threat that lay outside of the really tough obstacles such as a decrease in paper readership, and increase in electronic media, and the fact that it is virtually impossible for a food critic to be anonymous these days and ensure a lack of preferential treatment.

Then again, I haven't really fathomed the lengths that Sietsema goes to in order to hide his identity. For some reason, Mrs. Doubtfire comes to mind.

It's actually Raymond Sokolov, and he is a scholar, food historian and has authored numerous cookbooks, in addition to a long stint as the NY Times restaurant critic and writing a food anthropology column in Natural History Magazine for many years. His book Why We Eat What We Eat which isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article, is one of the most fascinating and enjoyably readable books about world culinary history of the several that I have read.

To suggest that Sokolov, unlike Tom Sietsema, has no culinary background suggests that you need to bone up a bit on your reading.

[monavano]

It's actually Raymond Sokolov, and he is a scholar, food historian and has authored numerous cookbooks, in addition to a long stint as the NY Times restaurant critic and writing a food anthropology column in Natural History Magazine. His book Why We Eat What We Eat which isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia article, is one of the most fascinating and enjoyably readable books about culinary history of the several that I have read.

To suggest that Sokolov, unlike Tom Sietsema, has no culinary background suggests that you need to bone up a bit on your reading.

thanks for the correction on the name. No, I didn't mean to suggest that at all. I gleaned that Sokolov has vast experience- "transatlantic" as described. I was implying that apparently his leaving makes the group of truly good, objective restaurant critics even smaller, according to the author.

I think he slighted Sietsema.

[Miami Danny]

thanks for the correction on the name. No, I didn't mean to suggest that at all. I gleaned that Sokolov has vast experience- "transatlantic" as described. I was implying that apparently his leaving makes the group of truly good, objective restaurant critics even smaller, according to the author.

I think he slighted Sietsema.

I believe you misread the piece-Ozersky talks about Sokolov's extensive culinary background, and compliments Tom on his as well. But that doesn't mean that Sokolov, as well as others, haven't outlived their usefulness as print critics.

[zoramargolis]

I believe you misread the piece-Ozersky talks about Sokolov's extensive culinary background, and compliments Tom on his as well. But that doesn't mean that Sokolov, as well as others, haven't outlived their usefulness as print critics.

Is "outlived their usefulness" to readers really the reason that seasoned and knowledgeable veterans are being booted from print media positions? And from other forms of media, like NPR, too? Younger, "hipper" and cheaper to try to appeal to gen-X, Y and milleneal readers, and to cut costs is more like it.

[Heather]

he contends that there is no perspective in restaurant critiquing anymore. Apparently, we "foodies" are all dazzled easily, like a child with a rattle who responds to the sensory stimulation without any true intellectual rigor. A rattle of sashimi over here, a rattle of pate over there.

The author has a fair point here, especially when you think about the lengths some places will go to cater to the online community - lengths that make sense for places that want to increase their clientele and Google hits. Now, not all of the sacred cows here offer comps, more attentive service and special happy hours -- Palena comes to mind -- but many of them do, and is it realistic to expect that posters who get those will be objective in the writing here? It's no different from being a regular or friend of the house. What saves this site from being another tiresome food blog is the moderating by the owner and by the community, that challenges suckups and squeaky wheels alike, and pulls some honesty from the hagiography. (That's not exactly the word I wanted, but I'm getting off on the alliteration, so hush)

I have to call bullshit on the contention that older journalists are being sacked because they aren't good anymore. I have a lot of friends in the print biz and 99.9% will say that it's a cost-cutting measure, plain and simple, because free web content is eating into their employers profits. Sorry, but a blogger will never be an adequate replacement for an experienced reporter, fact-checker, and editor.

[monavano]

I believe you misread the piece-Ozersky talks about Sokolov's extensive culinary background, and compliments Tom on his as well. But that doesn't mean that Sokolov, as well as others, haven't outlived their usefulness as print critics.

I read it as a back-handed compliment, but you're right, a compliment, nonetheless. I like print critics-follow TS and TK online and in print. I'm taken back by the author's disdain for folks like us.

[Miami Danny]

Is "outlived their usefulness" to readers really the reason that seasoned and knowledgeable veterans are being booted from print media positions? And from other forms of media, like NPR, too? Younger, "hipper" and cheaper to try to appeal to gen-X, Y and milleneal readers, and to cut costs is more like it.

What I said was "...outlived their usefulness as print critics." Getting fired is usually the first step.

[monavano]

The author has a fair point here, especially when you think about the lengths some places will go to cater to the online community - lengths that make sense for places that want to increase their clientele and Google hits. Now, not all of the sacred cows here offer comps, more attentive service and special happy hours -- Palena comes to mind -- but many of them do, and is it realistic to expect that posters who get those will be objective in the writing here? It's no different from being a regular or friend of the house. What saves this site from being another tiresome food blog is the moderating by the owner and by the community, that challenges suckups and squeaky wheels alike, and pulls some honesty from the hagiography. (That's not exactly the word I wanted, but I'm getting off on the alliteration, so hush)

I have to call bullshit on the contention that older journalists are being sacked because they aren't good anymore. I have a lot of friends in the print biz and 99.9% will say that it's a cost-cutting measure, plain and simple, because free web content is eating into their employers profits. Sorry, but a blogger will never be an adequate replacement for a reporter, fact-checker, and editor.

I agree that anyone can become beholden when given special treatment and comps. It's a trap that's hard not to fall in to.

[LowellR]

Are we taking over the job of these giants of food reviewing, and do we besmirch their very exsistance with our subjective (and at times passionate) commentary? Are we, in effect, impugning their authority?

No.

But I do agree in part with

the linchpin of Ozerski's argument. . . that aside from the reviews generated by a small pantheon of revered food critics. . . there is no perspective in restaurant critiquing anymore.

I agree with him as it pertains to a food board in general, like Chow, where you have a myriad of one-off (or two- or five- or ten-off) reviews, from which you are trying to glean what a reatuarnt experience will be based on a description by someone you barely know. In contrast, when you read a restuarant critic week in and week out, you slowly garner a modicum of understanding of his or her individual likes, dislikes, peeves and quirks. So when you read his or her review, you have enough of a basis of him or her to know whether or not you (will) agree with some or all of her opinions. As Ozereski (sort of) says

When you like a critic, you trust his judgment not because he has a doctorate in food letters, although such things do apparently exist. He's proved himself over a long period. You know what he likes or dislikes. You get him.

But I think Ozerski's wrong in his conclusion that only long-lived food critics can provide that background, that trust. I can get that same depth of knowledge from individual bloggers or members on this (or other) boards IF I've read them enough. Maybe Ozerski hasn't spent enough time reading Don's reviews, but I think there's more than enough there from which to "get" him.

[monavano]

No.

But I do agree in part with

I agree with him as it pertains to a food board in general, like Chow, where you have a myriad of one-off (or two- or five- or ten-off) reviews, from which you are trying to glean what a reatuarnt experience will be based on a description by someone you barely know. In contrast, when you read a restuarant critic week in and week out, you slowly garner a modicum of understanding of his or her individual likes, dislikes, peeves and quirks. So when you read his or her review, you have enough of a basis of him or her to know whether or not you (will) agree with some or all of her opinions. As Ozereski (sort of) says

When you like a critic, you trust his judgment not because he has a doctorate in food letters, although such things do apparently exist. He's proved himself over a long period. You know what he likes or dislikes. You get him.

But I think Ozerski's wrong in his conclusion that only long-lived food critics can provide that background, that trust. I can get that same depth of knowledge from individual bloggers or members on this (or other) boards IF I've read them enough. Maybe Ozerski hasn't spent enough time reading Don's reviews, but I think there's more than enough there from which to "get" him.

That's a great point about knowing your reviewers; their personality, likes, dislikes. I do think that a drawback of Chow is that lack of context in some instances-starting a thread that is overall negative, and will go unchallenged or unanswered. It's not as fair and balanced as when you have a community that returns again and again. Insular, yet in a good way.

[Miami Danny]

What I said was "...outlived their usefulness as print critics." Getting fired is usually the first step.

It seems that WSJ, by firing Sokolov, is actually digging in for a battle with the Times