To Junket or Not To Junket

Today the Chicago Tribune jumped into the whole Esquire magazine, John Mariani, Chef Cantu flap with an article from the LA Times (a Tribune Company paper) entitled The real cost of a free meal, A restaurant critic dines on the house, raising serious questions about the ethics of reviewing. It is written by Times staff writer Scott Martelle.

I don't write restaurant reviews but I do write about American whiskey for various magazines, such as WHISKY, Malt Advocate and Nightclub & Bar. I am compensated for these articles, but the publications rarely if ever pay my "expenses." If I have to travel to report a story, or have to obtain a product to taste and review, I can either do so out of my own pocket or accept junkets and freebies.

I accept junkets and freebies.

The publications I write for expect me (and all of their other contributors) to accept these trips and gifts and still write honestly about my benefactors although, since these publications depend on advertising from the same companies that are funding me, they probably don't want me to be too honest. That's not a knock at any of those publications. I said "probably" because I have never had a magazine edit me for being too critical of a producer or marketer, but we all know what business we are in and to some extent, at least, we are all in the business of selling the product.

Sometimes the events I attend are also attended by--what's the word I want?--real journalists. There was a young woman from the Wall Street Journal along on a couple of recent trips. Sure enough, she paid her own way and declined the various gifts bestowed along the way.

How do I feel about this? I'm comfortable about my own ethics. Maybe we've established what I am and the only outstanding issue now is price. I certainly won't sell out my own small reputation for a couple free bottles of whiskey. (Although I do very much like free whiskey, and free air fare, and free hotel rooms, and free meals, and the nice glassware and other freebies I have received.) At least one member of my own small fraternity has been criticized for some of the same "abuses" of which Mariani has been accused.

My point is that there seem to be ethical gray areas here. I also think full disclosure is in order. It costs a publication like the Tribune a great deal of money to pay a restaurant critic and give him or her a dining budget. Publications that obtain similar editorial "on the cheap" by publishing articles by writers who are subsidized by and essentially flacking for the subjects of their pieces should at least be called out. There is a difference. Caveat emptor.

I write this, and describe my own situation, to invite others similarly situated to describe their situation and their feelings about it.

Thanks, cowdery, for the very interesting perspective.

I think your comments make a lot of sense. I haven't read the Mariani piece--I only know of the story what I've read on LTH--but the most surprising thing to me is that he is working for a major media outlet who apparently is not picking up his tab.

I think restaurant reviews are different from your situation (and many others) in at least two ways: 1) how the restaurant takes care of you is part of what you're reviewing and 2) each dish is prepared individually with more or less care for a variety of reasons.

Unlike, for example, whiskey reviewing. You may get to taste whiskeys that nobody else gets, but when you're reviewing the new vintage of Evan Williams Single Barrel, you're actually reviewing the same product that people reading the review might buy.

And while having a nice meal, cigar, and evening repast with the boys at Jim Beam may have subtle effects on how you review their product, it would be a lot different if you were reviewing how well they treat people.