Tribune's Good Eating wins award?

Congratulations to the Chicago Tribune's 'Good Eating' section, for taking third place in the 2004 Association of Food Journalists awards for Best Newspaper Food Section (over 350,000 circulation).

I just don't get this. Every Wednesday I hold out hope that something better will appear in this section, but every week I see the same thing:

1) A main story with little depth, written with the assumption that the reader isn't all that intelligent or food-knowledgable.

2) Poorly disguised advertisements in the form of a short article about what Exciting New Pre-packaged Foodstuffs are now Available To Consumers! Or, probably what they've been sent for free, along with a press release that they cull their prose from.

3) A taste-off between one pre-packaged or frozen Food Product versus another, with the lesser of the evils "winning". Sample quote: "Dominick's grape jelly [75% corn syrup, 10% gelling agents, 15% fruit concentrate] exhibits real fruit flavor, better that Jewel's grape jelly [80% various sweeteners, 5% artificial colors, 10% reduced apple juice, 5% fruit], a little tart for our tasters." This is not a real quote, of course.

3) Bill Daley's wine column, which has mostly turned out to be quotes from area wine professionals, on subjects like what wine goes best with Italian beef. Ok, look, wine does go with these sandwiches, but he has yet to write an article with the assumption that there are serious wine lovers in the readership. Frank Prial at the NYT doesn't talk down to its readers, nor do Dorothy and John Brechter in the WSJ, etc.

4) A few AP or UP stories chopped up and tossed in.

All right, there are a few other items there, but how can this possibly win an award? At all? No, I don't know who came it first and second, or what circulation the Trib has compared to the far superior NYT or LA Times food sections, but I've always thought this to be such a weak part of an increasingly watered down daily.

This Wednesday, by comparison, the NYT had a long, detailed, interesting and well written story on specialty apple growers, written with the assumption that those reading are...well, interested in the subject, know how to read above the 8th grade level, etc.

Well, a little rant, but I wasn't sure where else to do it.

I just don't get this. Every Wednesday I hold out hope that something better will appear in this section, but every week I see the same thing:

1) A main story with little depth, written with the assumption that the reader isn't all that intelligent or food-knowledgable.

I share your feelings. But -- with the exception of the occasional in-depth front page story, isn't your description apt for the entire Tribune? Like wouldn't it be nice to see some coverage, say, of what goes on in the city council or the state legislature? Along with some decent food reporting, of course.

Speaking of the NYT's I found the 10.21.04 Dining and Wine section article 'Looks Like Diversity, but It Tastes Like Tuna'
By Frank Bruni both interesting and thought provoking.

The above name of the article, in bold, is a hyperlink to the NYT's article, registration, which is free, required.

The Trib has had interesting articles of late as well, for example Romancing the Oyster, no longer available online, and Monica Eng's Solly's butter burger in Milwaukee story. Solly's in the trib is available for a few more days on line Here

Enjoy,
Gary

Eng is the most interesting writer there. Or maybe I mean she has the most eclectic tastes, and thus is more interesting to me.

Michael M. wrote:Congratulations to the Chicago Tribune's 'Good Eating' section, for taking third place in the 2004 Association of Food Journalists awards for Best Newspaper Food Section (over 350,000 circulation).

I just don't get this. Every Wednesday I hold out hope that something better will appear in this section, but every week I see the same thing:

The decline and fall of the food guide:

http://trentland.com/foodguide/


This mania lasted a WHOLE 5 WEEKS longer than my normal manias.


--trent