Another area of inquiry that I’ve had in the back of my mind is how local papers, like some in the Oak Park area, never actually review a place, that is, they never publish anything other than glowing, “gosharooti this is great” articles about local restaurants. Never do they talk about the taco that wasn’t tasty, the flavorless fish, nothing negative ever.

The dirty and obvious truth, I suspect, is that these publications rely upon ad revenue from these restaurants, and so are loathe to offer anything even approaching a negative comment. Reading these “reviews,” I frequently find my eyes wandering to the top of the page to see if the piece is flagged in small font as an “advertisement.”

I forget the figure Grant Achatz gave of Alinea diners who take a picture during dinner-- I think it was something like 70% though. It's certainly not the bizarre habit that it was even a few years ago. Although it still might be considered strange to walk into Hoosier Mama already having photos of the pork-apple-sage pie on your camera, as I did yesterday.

I'm pretty sure that good restaurants and chefs, ones that last, have always warmed to the inquisitive customer who knows his foods and wines. And that's a pretty democratic thing-- being able to afford super-rare wines may not be, even being able to dine out enough to know oysters or whatever may not be, but anybody can read a book and walk in with a certain level of knowledge. The internet adds a different more real-time dimension to that, but it's always been there. I was a teenager in Kansas with $20 in my pocket if I was lucky when I learned from Esquire that the best French restaurant in America was in Wheeling, and why.

Mike G wrote:I forget the figure Grant Achatz gave of Alinea diners who take a picture during dinner-- I think it was something like 70% though. It's certainly not the bizarre habit that it was even a few years ago. Although it still might be considered strange to walk into Hoosier Mama already having photos of the pork-apple-sage pie on your camera, as I did yesterday.

I'm sure that's true; but I was surprised that I was the only one in my eyeshot who was taking pictures @ French Laundry last week. Staff didn't seem to mind, even held certain dishes in front of the camera for me.

David Hammond wrote:Reading these “reviews,” I frequently find my eyes wandering to the top of the page to see if the piece is flagged in small font as an “advertisement.”

I think the Pioneer Press papers often print restaurant reviews provided by "contributors" rather than staff, and these are unfailingly glowing. Even more murky, I think, since they are not labelled as advertisements.

The question that everyone seems to be circling around is bias. Does the critic become biased favorably toward the chef if s/he gets to know the chef? Given the poor economy, should critics—both professional reviewers for publications and posters on this and other forums—show a bias towards being more forgiving of a place if they had a few poor dishes one night? If the critic, whether knowing the chef at all or not, thinks the chef is doing something interesting and novel with a new place but it’s flailing should the critic hold fire?

I’ve been thinking a lot about this forum and bias with Xoco opening. It’s a block from my office, so I was pretty excited to see it. I wondered how people posting on this forum would react to the place because I’ve always felt that, while some people give Bayless’s restaurants a lot of (in my view) much deserved love, there’s also a lot of people (here and in the real world that exists outside this forum) who dislike his restaurants and are disposed to dislike them without having even tried the places. Bayless seems to be a lightening rod for obvious reasons—he’s a gringo making what should be street or “ethnic neighborhood” food into a high-end culinary adventure; he’s on TV, etc. In other words, some have an instant bias against him. Others impressed by the guy’s obvious passion for what he does and liking his food, on the other hand, could be accused of being his “groupies.” So I wasn’t surprised to see the thread on Xoco get acrimonious. What’s nice about this forum, however, is that the discussion has since righted itself after Gary’s intervention.

I suspect the professional critics here will find this mention of bias banal. But it’s interesting when you read posts how often people refer to bias. We make categories in our brains and we expect things to fit in those categories. “I really didn’t expect to like this restaurant because it seems too glitzy for me, but the food is amazing.” “Who would eat at a place like that when you can get the same thing in Chinatown for a lot less?” (Sorry, but I like Wow Bao and don’t think one is an idiot for feeling that way.) As humans, we have biases going into a restaurant and there are so many variables (environment, service, our own mood that day) that can bias us once we begin to have the restaurant experience—was the host pissy on the phone, was the place empty and lonely feeling or so packed to the gills so that the kitchen screwed up orders, did we have a crappy day which made us either predisposed to be cheered up by a good meal or unlikely to get any pleasure from anything that day?

That’s why how David started this thread is so impressive. It’s a model for reviewing a restaurant by taking each dish as it comes and treating the experience of eating the food with a blank slate and then giving the critic’s assessment of each item. And to Bill’s credit—he had started some of the acrimonious discussion about Xoco—he has since done the exact same thing in discussing dishes he’s eaten there.

For that reason, I respectfully disagree with David that critics should make reviews or postings into “teaching moments” that encourage chefs. With integrity and with open mention of any connections to the chef or any other variables that may have positively or negatively influenced their opinion of a dish, posters should tell us exactly what happened to them when the fork or chop stick (or finger) brought the food into their mouth. As Mike G points out, it may only be one person’s experience, but especially on this forum others will either validate it or reject it.

In my mind, a challenge for lth will not be that reviewers of food are interacting with chefs. It’s that people who have an ingrained awareness of biases (the founders, posters who post a lot and have a reputation) and seek to recognize them and set them aside when describing what they thought of food eaten are interacting with an increasingly large group of people who don’t take things as seriously but want information on restaurants and like to, from time to time, give an opinion on a place. I see a two tier group developing between those who are the pros and the semi-pros and everyone else who just wants to eat well. (I put myself in the latter group.)

CCCB wrote:
For that reason, I respectfully disagree with David that critics should make reviews or postings into “teaching moments” that encourage chefs.

I see a two tier group developing between those who are the pros and the semi-pros and everyone else who just wants to eat well. (I put myself in the latter group.)

CCCB, thank you for the very thoughtful response, with which I'm in much agreement, though two points jumped out that I feel the need to address.

I don't think reviews or posting should only be about encouraging chefs, but I do think that is a very acceptable collateral benefit. Within reason, I usually do try to find something good to say about a place, and that's usually not very hard; then, it's the reader's task to weigh the good and bad and make a buying decision.

Wanting to "eat well" is not limited to the latter group you mention but to everyone on this forum. That said, "eating well" has a lot of dimensions, and to me the experience of eating includes more than just how good the stuff tastes. Taste is critical, but I also judge a place based on factors like authenticity, innovation, and service, which are not factors that all critics/reviewers/posters take into account. And that's just fine. It's not that one approach is better or worse, more complete or incomplete, than another. It is that different people experience restaurants in different and equally legitimate ways.

Taste is critical, but I also judge a place based on factors like authenticity, innovation, and service, which are not factors that all critics/reviewers/posters take into account.

Of course, I'm assuming that everyone here wants to "eat well." And I agree with your point about the multiple factors by which you can judge a place beyond taste. My point was that the pros have an awareness of bias and try, perhaps instinctively, to focus on the food, the environment, and the experience they're having in that particular moment and report on it with clarity even if there are other factors that could weigh on them. (At least from what I've seen of the pros and the best posters.) I'm not saying the rest of us aren't capable of doing that, but that bias is such an insidious thing you have to get accustomed to putting it aside.

I hear your point, but I don't know that I agree - as a reader, I get to know people before I follow what they say, for that very reason - not just here: I used to enjoy the combo of Siskel and Ebert because, though I might not agree with either, I knew both their perspectives well enough to figure out whether I'd like a movie or not. Biases are fairly easy for outside viewers to see, but I don't know that anyone is self-aware enough to eliminate all their own biases.

I don't know - obviously, I'm not trying to position myself at the "pro" level, but I just try to write about my experiences as honestly as I can. If I'm in a bad mood that day, I try to note that. If I generally don't like a certain style, I try to point that out, but I still try to write about what happened from my own point of view. I figure most people on this forum who are gracious enough to read what I write can figure out what they need to know from it. I think worrying about biases detracts from the storytelling and personal experience, which is what I look for in food writing. In short, writing without emotion is boring: emotion is a volatile thing, affected by your mood, your relationships, the weather, the time of day. Food writing should be more than a dry multiple-choice survey: it should, at its best, be human.

Of course, one distinct advantage this forum has over other media is the ability to ask for clarification - one reason that I don't often look elsewhere for what I want to know.

CCCB wrote:

I'm not saying the rest of us aren't capable of doing that, but that bias is such an insidious thing you have to get accustomed to putting it aside.

Another way of looking at this is that because some of us who may feel subject to bias do try to overcome it, we may overcompensate and actually be more severe in our reports to ensure that we're not inadvertently putting too much positive spin on a bad/mediocre meal.

When I was a cub scout, my father was scout master, and he was so concerned about not being biased in my favor, that when we cubs were misbehaving (which was most of the time), my punishment was always the most severe. As I am sure I cried at the time, "That's not fair." It's not, but it's, at least, understandable.

The idea of bias presupposes a possible state of absolute objectivity from which you may have fallen. I don't believe in that.

If I rave about Vie, it's in large part because I favor their approach. It's not bias to like what you like, even if you've gotten to know them a little because you like what they're doing. And the reader should be able to glean, even from a single review, if someone is expressing like or dislike as part of a coherent way of looking at things... and conversely, should be able to tell when they're bending over backwards to find good things to say-- for some reason they're not saying.

A couple of lunatics I know recently had a meal at Frontera Grill, and they didn't much care for it. Of course, one of their spouses had refused even to attend, citing his prejudice that Frontera is "the Chili's of Mexican food." The other has been diagnosed with a clinical phobia having to do with electronic buzzers and gift shops. No report of the meal has been written on LTHForum, possibly because these posters are quite aware of how their biases distorted their ability to enjoy some of the country's best food, or possibly because they fear the scorn and ridicule they'd rightly receive if they posted their misguided impressions of dishes ranked by experts as the best in the country. Either way, I respect their judgment, if not their palates in this case.

This seems like an interesting discussion, but I can't seem to make heads nor tails of what it's all about (Maybe it's due to my limited communication skills which typically consist of various grunts and head nods.) Let me add:

- I couldn't care less if someone knows the chef/owner and is obviously biased one way or another. Just let us know that.
- I wish I had more of these type relationships.
- Not surprised more chefs don't contribute here as they work hard enough as is and probably want to think about something else once in a while.
- A thread here with 4-5 reviews from creditable posters far outweighs the value any "professional" critic can offer.